^{page 257 note 2} Vol. xx. p. 406 ff.

^{page 258 note 1} Sanskrit Texts, vol. iii. pp. 116–164.Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 1} It is clear from the context of this passage that abrahmûṇaḥ means “unattended by hymns,” and not “without a priest.” After saying that soma-libations without hymns are unacceptable to Indra, the poet does not add that he is himself a priest, or that he is attended by one, but that he generates a hymn; and the same sense is required by “what follows in the second verse. Accordingly we find that Sâyaṇa explains abrahmûṇaḥ by stotra-hînûḥ, “destitute of hymns.” The same sense is equally appropriate in the next passage cited, x. 105, 8.Google Scholar On iv. 16, 9, where abrahmû is an epithet of dasyu, “demon,” Sâyaṇa understands it to mean “without a priest,” but it may mean equally well or better, “without devotion,”

^{page 261 note 1} I have to acknowledge my obligations to Professor Aufrecht for the assistance which he has freely rendered to me in the preparation of this paper, and especially in the translation of the more difficult texts which occur in the course of it.

^{page 261 note 1} Varddhanam =vṛddhi-karaṃ stotram (Sâyaṇa).

^{page 262 note 1} Compare R.V. iii. 32, 10;Google Scholar x. 109, 4, below, and the words, “the highest heaven of invention.”

^{page 262 note 2} Compare R.V. x. 71Google Scholar and x. 125.

^{page 262 note 3} Compare v. 19Google Scholar and stoma-vâhasah, iv. 32, 12.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 4} Different deities are called ṛshi, kavi, etc., in the following texts: v. 29, 1; vi. 14, 2; viii. 6, 41; ix. 96, 18; ix. 107, 7; x. 27, 22; x. 112, 9.

^{page 262 note 5} See DrHaug's, Ait. Br., vol. i., Introduction, p. 20.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 6} The word here seems to indicate an order or profession, as the silent priest is still a priest.

^{page 263 note 1} A distinction of orders or professions appears to be here recognized. In the following verse (v. 54, 7) a rishi and a prince are distinguished much in the same way as a priest and king are in i. 108, 7: “That man, whether rishi or prince, whom ye, O Maruts, support, is neither conquered nor killed, he neither decays nor is distressed, nor is injured; his riches do not decline, nor his support.” Compare v. 14, where it is said, “Ye, O Maruts, give riches with desirable men, ye protect a rishi who is skilled in hymns (sûmct-vipra); ye give a horse and food to Bharata, ye make a king prosperous.” In iii. 43, 5, reference is found to Viṣvâmitra, or the author, being made by Indra both a prince and a rishi.

^{page 264 note 1} Compare R.V. v. 37, 4 f.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 2} Compare viii. 69, 4; x. 39, 11; x. 107, 5; and the word purohita, used of a ministering priest as one placed in front. Prof. Aufrecht, however, would translate the last words, “under whose rule the priest receives the first or principal portion.”

^{page 264 note 3} See on this passage Roth's Art. on Brahma and the Brâhmans, Journ. Germ. Or. Soc, i. 77 ff.Google Scholar See also Aitareya Brâhmaṇa, viii. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 4} Ṛbhus?

^{page 265 note 1} Compare viii. 45, 39, below.

^{page 265 note 2} DrHaug, (Introd. to Ait, Br. p. 20)Google Scholar refers to Ait. Br. v. 34,Google Scholar as illustrating this reproach. See p. 376 of his translation. This verse clearly shows that the priests formed a professional body.

^{page 266 note 1} This verse also distinctly proves that the priesthood already formed a profession. Verse 3 of the same hymn is as follows: “I am a poet, my father a physician, my mother a grinder of corn.” Unfortunately there is nothing further said which could throw light on the relations in which the different professions and classes of society stood to each other.

^{page 267 note 1} There are two more texts in which the word brâhmana is found, viz., i. 15, 5, and ii. 36, 5, on which see the following note. The word brahmaputra, son of a brahman, is found in ii. 43, 2: “Thou, O bird, singest a sâtna verse like an udgâtri; thou singest praises like the son of a brahman at the libations.”

^{page 267 note 2} In the Nighantus, iii. 13, these words brûhmaṇû vrata-chûriṇaḥ are referred to as conveying the sense of a simile, though they are unaccompanied by a particle of similitude. In his Illustrations of the Nirukta, p. 126,Google Scholar Roth thus remarks on this passage: “This is the only place in the first nine mandalas of the R.V. in which the word Brâhmaṇa is found with its later sense, whilst the tenth mandala offers a number of instances. This is one of the proofs that many of the hymns in this book were composed considerably later (than the rest of the R.V.). The word brûhmaṇa has another signification in i. 15, 5;Google Scholar ii. 36, 5; and vi. 75, 10. (In the first of these texts, Roth assigns to the word the sense of the Brâhman's soma-vessel. See his Lexicon, s.v. It does not appear what meaning he would give to the word in vi. 75, 10. He has in this passage overlooked R.V. i. 164, 45, which, however, is duly adduced in his Lexicon). See Wilson's translation of the hymn; as also Müller's, in his Anc. Sansk. Lit. p. 494 f.

^{page 267 note 3} Saras. See R.V. viii. 66, 4,Google Scholar quoted in Nirukta v. 11, where Yâska says, “The ritualists inform us that at the mid-day oblation there are thirty uktha platters destined for one deity, which are then drunk at one draught. These are here called saras.” (Compare Roth's Illustrations on the passage.) See also R.V. vi. 17, 11,Google Scholar and viii. 7, 10, with Sâyana's explanations of all three passages).

^{page 268 note 1} Compare A.V. vii. 115, 1 ff—xii. 5, 6.Google Scholar

^{page 268 note 2} I cannot pretend that I am satisfied with the translation I have attempted of this very difficult hymn. Verses 4 and 5 are explained in Sâyaṇa's Introduction to the Rig-veda, pp. 30 f., of Müller's edition.

^{page 268 note 3} I quote here as somewhat akin to this hymn another from the A.V. vi. 108,Google Scholar being a prayer for wisdom or intelligence. 1. “Come to us, wisdom, the first, with cows and horses; (come) thou with the rays of the sun; thou art to us an object of worship. 2. To (obtain) the succour of the gods, I invoke wisdom the first, full of prayer, inspired by prayer, praised by rishis, imbibed by Brahmachârins. 3. We introduce within me that wisdom which ṛbhus know, that wisdom which divine beings (asurâḥ). know, that excellent wisdom which rishis know. 4. Make me, o Agni, wise to-day with that wisdom which the wise rishis—the makers of things existing—know. 5. We introduce wisdom in the evening, wisdom in the morning, wisdom at noon, wisdom with the rays of the sun, and with speech” (vachasû).

^{page 268 note 4} Compare x. 125, 3; i. 164, 45; (x. 90, 11); and A.V. xii. 1, 45.Google Scholar

^{page 268 note 5} Compare Isaiah vi. 9, 10; and Matthew, xiii. 14, 15.Google Scholar

^{page 268 note 6} Vûk-sakhye, Yâska.

^{page 269 note 1} Compare i. 171, 2; ii. 35, 2; vi. 16, 47.

^{page 269 note 2} Such is the sense which Prof. Aufrecht thinks may, with probability, be assigned to sirîs, a word which occurs only here.

^{page 269 note 3} According to Yâska (Nir. i. 8), these four persons are respectively the hotri, udgûtri, brahman, and adhvaryu priests. The brahman, he says, being possessed of all science, ought to know everything; and gives utterance to his knowledge as occasion arises for it (jûte jûte). See Dr. Haug's remarks on this verse. Ait. Br. Introd. p. 20.

^{page 270 note 1} Compare oshadhîḥ Soma-rûjnîh, “the plants whose king is Soma,” in vv. 18 and 19 of this hymn.

^{page 270 note 2} Compare R.V. x. 85, 8 f., 40 f.;Google Scholar and my contributions to Vedic Mythology, No. ii., p. 2 f.

^{page 270 note 3} I am indebted to Prof. Aufrecht for this explanation of the verse.

^{page 270 note 4} See R.V. i. 164, 34, 35,Google Scholar above.

^{page 270 note 5} See my paper on the Progress of the Vedic religion, pp. 374 ff.

^{page 271 note 1} See A.V. x. 7, 1 ff., 9, 26.Google Scholar

^{page 271 note 2} The word here in the original is sûnûnûm, with which it is difficult to make any sense. Should we read senûnûm?

^{page 272 note 1} The fourth volume of Professor Wilson's Rig-veda, edited by Mr. Cowell, having been published since this paper was written, the reader may compare his version of such of the following passages as are included in it with mine.

^{page 272 note 2} The word here rendered is smaddishṭayaḥ. In his explanation of this passage Sâyaṇa considers it to mean praṣastûtisarjanaṣraddhûdidûnûngayutûḥ, i.e. “possessing the approved constituents of a gift, viz., generosity, faith,” etc. It occurs in three other texts, viz., in iii. 45, 5, as an epithet of Indra, where Sâyaṇa takes it to signify bhadravûkya, “speaking auspicious words;” in vi. 63, 9, where he takes it as = praṣasta-darṣanûn, “of approved look;” and in x. 62, 9, Prof. Aufrecht considers the word to mean “strong,” “robust,” a sense which suits the context of iii. 45, 5 (where it cannot possibly bear the interpretation assigned by Sâyaṇa on vii. 18, 23), and apparently also that of x. 62, 9. From the etymology (apparently smat for sumat, “good” or “well,” and dishṭi, “pleasure” or “good luck,”) one would suppose it ought to mean “blessed” or “fortunate,” a sense which might also suit the context of iii. 45, 5.

^{page 272 note 3} Tokaṃ tokûya. The sense is obscure.

^{page 273 note 1} Sâyaṇa explains nirmajâm as niḥṣesheṇa ṣuddhûnam gavam. Roth leaves the word unexplained; and Prof. Aufrecht suggests nirṇijûm, “garments,” as perhaps the true reading.

^{page 273 note 2} Compare Psalm xcvi. 12.

^{page 273 note 3} This verse is translated in Benfey's Glossary in the Sâma-veda, s.v. meha.

^{page 273 note 4} Or, “No one, (as) the sage expects, will (prove to be) a more munificent person.”

^{page 274 note 1} See in note above the remarks on vii. 18,. 22.

^{page 274 note 2} Compare the similar expressions in R.V. v. 61, 19.Google Scholar

^{page 274 note 3} This challenge seems to mean that no ungodly man had received such gifts.

^{page 275 note 1} Roth, s.v. dûsa, conjectures that instead of dûse, the proper reading is here dûsân, which would alter the sense to, “I received a hundred slaves from Balbutha.”

^{page 275 note 2} Langlois in loco refers for illustration of this to R.V. iv. 42, 8.Google Scholar

^{page 275 note 3} Sâyana here understands vadhûmataḥ, of mares, vaḍavâbhis tadvataḥ.

^{page 276 note 1} Compare R.V. viii. 28, 4:Google Scholar “As the gods desire so it comes to pass; no one—no mortal, however hostile—can hinder that (will) of theirs.”

^{page 276 note 2} Compare viii. 54, 12, ahove.

^{page 276 note 3} In my article on “Manu, the progenitor of the Aryan Indians,” Jour. R. A. S., xx. p. 416,Google Scholar note, I translated this word manu as a proper name, perhaps wrongly.

^{page 276 note 4} Comp. S. P. Br. xiii. 5, 4, 14:Google Scholar “Neither former nor later men of the five races have reached this great work of Bharata (performed) to-day, as no mortal has reached the sky with his arms.”

^{page 277 note 1} It is to be observed that, in these eulogies of liberality, mention is nowhere made of Brâhmans as the recipients of the gifts. In two places, viii. 4, 20,Google Scholar and x. 33, 4, a rishi is mentioned as the receiver. In later works, such as the Ṣatapatha Brâhmans, on the contrary, the presents are distinctly connected with Brâhmans. Thus it is said in that work, ii. 2, 2, 6:Google Scholar “Two kinds of gods are gods, viz., the gods (proper), whilst those Brâhmans who have the Vedic teadition, and are learned, are the human gods. The worship (yajna) of these is divided into two kinds. Oblations constitute the worship offered to the gods, and presents (dakshiṇû) that offered to the human gods, the Brâhmans, who possess the Vedic tradition, and are learned. It is with oblations that a man gratifies the gods, and with presents that he gratifies the human gods, the Brâhmans, who possess the Vedic tradition, and are learned. Both these two kinds of gods, when gratified, place him in a state of happiness” (sudhâyâm); (or “convey him to the heavenly world,” as the expression is varied in the parallel passage of the same work, iv. 3, 4, 4.)

^{page 278 note 1} See also i. 94, 6, where it -is said: “Thou (Agni) art an adhvaryu, and the earliest hotri, a praṣûstri, a potri, and by nature a purohita. Knowing all the priestly functions (ârtvijyâ) wise, thou nourishest us,” etc.

^{page 278 note 2} See ProfMüller's, remarks on this subject, Anc. Sansk. Lit., pp. 485 ff.;Google Scholar and DrHaug's, somewhat different view of the same matter in his Introd. to Ait. Br., pp. 11 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 3} In regard to the great importance and influence of the priests, see Müller's, Anc. Sansk. lit., pp. 485 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 1} Dr. Haug, in his tract on the “Origin of Brâhmanism,” p. 5, thus states his views on this question: “It has been of late asserted that the original parts of the Vedas do not know the system of caste. But this conclusion was prematurely arrived at without sufficiently weighing the evidence. It is true the caste system is not to be found in such a developed state, the duties enjoined to the several castes are not so clearly defined as in the Law Books and Purâṇas. But nevertheless the system is already known in the earlier parts of the Vedas, or rather presupposed. The barriers only were not quite so insurmountable as in later times.” This view he supports by a reference to the Zend Avesta, from which he deduces the conclusion that the people had been divided into three classes even before the separation of the Indian from the Iranian Aryans, and adds: “From all we know, the real origin of caste appears to go back to a time anterior to the composition of the Vedic hymns, though its development into a regular system with insurmountable barriers can be referred only to the latest period of the Vedic times.” As thus stated, the difference between Dr. Haug and other European scholars is one of degree and age, not of principle, for none of them assert any distinction of race, or congenital difference, between the castes or classes.

^{page 280 note 1} See Müller's, remarks on this hymn in his Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 494.Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 2} In R.V. viii. 50, 9,Google Scholar it is said: “Whether an unwise or a wise man, O Indra, has offered to thee a hymn, he has gladdened (thee) through his devotion to thee.”

^{page 281 note 1} That the remarriage of women was customary among the Hindus of those days is also shewn by A.V., ix. 5, 27f.,Google Scholar quoted in my former paper on Yama, p. 299

^{page 281 note 2} This latter supposition derives a certain support from the emphasis with which the two verses in question (A.V. v. 17, 8, 9)Google Scholar assert that the Brâhman was the only true husband. Whence, it may be asked, the necessity for this strong and repeated asseveration, if the Râjanya and Vaiṣya husbands were not still alive, and prepared to claim the restoration of their wives? The verses are, however, explicable without this supposition.

It is to be observed, however, that no mention is here made of Ṣûdras as a class with which Brâhmans intermarried. Ṣûdras were not Âryas, like the three upper classes. This distinction is not recognised in the following verse of the A.V. xix. 62, 1:Google Scholar Make me dear to gods, dear to princes, dear to every one who beholds me, both to Ṣûdra and to Ârya.” (Unless we are to suppose that both here and in xix. 32, 8, ărya=a Vaiṣya, and not ārya, is the word.) In Ṣatapatha Brâhmaṇa, Kâṇva Ṣâkhâ (Adhvara Kâṇḍa, i. 6), the same thing is clearly stated in these words, for a copy of which I am indebted to Professor Müller:—Tan na sarva eva prapadyeta na hi devûḥ sarveṇaiva sangachhante | ûrya eva brûkmaṇo vû kshattriyo vû vaiṢyo vâ te hi yajniyâh | no eva sarveṇaiva samvadeta na hi devâḥ sarveṇaiva samvadante âryeṇaiva brâhmaṇena vû kshattriyeṇa vû vaiṣyena vû te hi yajniyâḥ | yady enam ṣûdreṇa samvâdo vindet “ittham enam nichakshva” ity anyam brûyûd esha dîkshitasyopachâraḥ. “Every one cannot obtain this (for the gods do not associate with every man), but only an Ârya, a Brâhman, or a Kshattriya, or a Vaiṣya, for these can sacrifice. Nor should one talk with every body (for the gods do not talk with every body), but only with an Ârya, a Brâhman, or a Kshattriya, or a Vaiṣya, for these can sacrifice. If any one have occasion to speak to a Ṣudra, let him say to another person, ‘Tell this man so and so.’ This is the rule for an initiated man.”

In the crresponding passage of the Mâdhyandina Ṣâkhâ” (p. 224 of “Weber's Edition) this passage is differently recorded.

From Manu (ix. 149–157; x. 7ff.) it is clear that Brâhmans intermarried with ṣûdra women, though the offspring of these marriages were degraded.

^{page 282 note 1} The entire hymn is translated in my paper on the Progress of the Vedic Religion, pp. 353 ff., and also in “Sanskrit Texts,” vol. i. pp. 6 ff.,Google Scholar where some remarks are made on it.

^{page 284 note 1} In the Vishṇu Purâṇa, Trayyâruṇa, Pushkarin, and Kapi are said to have been sons of Urukshaya, and the last of them to have become a Brâhman. In the Matsya P., Trayyaruni, Pushkarâruṇi, and Kapi are said to have all become Brahmans. (Wilson, , V. P., p. 451,Google Scholar and note.)

^{page 285 note 1} Eyen females are said to be authors of hymns or parts of hymns, as Romaṣâ, “daughter of Bṛhaspati, an utterer of hymns” (i. 126), Lopamudrâ (i. 179, 1), and Viṣvavârâ, of the family of Atri (v. 28).

^{page 286 note 1} This sense of the word is confirmed by i. 33, 3, where the rishi says to Indra, “mâ paṣir bhûr asmad adhi,” “Be not niggardly towards us.”

^{page 287 note 1} Roth, s.v. understands dúṇâṇam to mean “continually.”

^{page 288 note 1} Or, according to Sâyaṇa, “who do not satisfy us who are possessed of laudatory hymns.”

^{page 289 note 1} Achakrebhiḥ, easily, swiftly, noiselessly, suddenly. Compare the phrase achalcrayâ svadhayâ varttamânam in x. 27, 19, and nichakrayâ, viii. 7, 29.

^{page 289 note 2} This latter rendering of the words ya ohate rakshaso devavîtau, is suggested by Professor Aufrecht. Compare the words mâ no martûya ripave rakshasvine, etc., viii. 49, 8, and yo naḥ kaṣchid ririhshati rakshastvena martyaḥ, etc., viii. 18, 13. Sâyaṇa renders the words under consideration by “who brings Rakshases to to the sacrifice,—by irregular observances, etc., makes it demoniacal (âsura).”

^{page 289 note 3} The sense of this is not very clear, unless, as Professor Aufrecht proposes, we understand the words as an oath.

^{page 289 note 4} This verse occurs in a modified form in the A.V. ii. 12, 6,Google Scholar but without any perceptible difference of sense.

^{page 290 note 1} Or, “crush” (vi mrada).

^{page 291 note 1} In ix. 101,13, we find ṣvânam arâdhasam, “the dog who bestows nothing.”

^{page 292 note 1} Compare viii. 18, 13.

^{page 292 note 2} “Empty-handed,” âbhum, as explained by Böhtlingk and Roth s.v.

^{page 292 note 3} e.g. in the case of the Government Colleges in Ireland.

^{page 293 note 1} Prof. Aufrecht suggested that the words “the soma libation,” should be understood in this verse, and compares vii. 84, 3, and x. 39, 2. The blessings which attend a devout worshipper of Indra are also described in vi. 28, 2 ff.

^{page 293 note 2} See Prof. Goldstücker's Sanskrit Lexicon s.v. aratni. Sâyaṇa's interpretation of this verse, as there quoted and translated by Prof. G., is as follows: “Indra manifests himself (to the pious);. (the sacrificer), who, though not wealthy, offers him the soma libation,—him, Indra, the wealthy, holds in his hand (lit. fist, i.e. he protects him), after having defeated (niḥ scil. kṛshya) his enemies; even unsolicited he slays the foes of the Brâhmans.” I am, I confess, bold, enough to consider the rendering I have given in the text as preferable to Sâyaṇa's in the parts where mine differs from his. His connection of the negative particle na which follows revân with that word (so as to make it = arevân), instead of with the verb sunoti, seems forced and unnatural, especially as rich men are often censured as nonsacrificers (as in iv. 25; 7; v. 34, 0,. v. 42, 9; viii. 45, 15). Prof. Roth conjecturally interprets aratnau nirdadhȧti as meaning “he finds him out in a corner.” Prof. Aufrecht would render, “holds him at arm's length, despises him.”

^{page 294 note 3} Compare the following additional passages:—i. 110, 7; i. 113, 18; i. 121, 13; i. 131, 4; i. 132, 4; i. 133, 7; i. 151, 7; i. 152, 2; i. 174, 6; vi. 22, 8; vi. 23, 2, 3, 9. “We read in i. 51, 8: “Distinguish between the Âryas and those who are Dasyus; chastising the men who are destitute of rites (or lawless), subject them to the saerificer. Be a strong supporter of thy worshipper,” etc.; and in i. 130, 8: “Indra preserved the sacrificing Ârya in battle.” But it does not follow from such texts that the Âryas are always identifiable with, the worshippers of the gods, though the two classes would generally include the same persons.

As the people named in the following verse (iii. 53, 14), the Kîkatas, seem to have lived on the outskirts of Âryan civilization, no conclusion can be drawn from it in reference to the point before us. “What are thy cows, (o Indra) doing among the Kîkatas? (These people) neither draw (from these cows) milk to mix with the soma, nor do they heat the sacrificial kettle. Bring to us the wealth of Pramaganda (or the usurer); subject to us the degraded people.” The Kîkatas, according to Yâska (Nir. vi. 32), are a non-Âryan, race; though he and Sâyaṇa give nâstikas or atheists as an alternative sense. Prof. Weber (Indische Studien, i. 186) thinks that as Kîkaṭa is an old name for Magadha or Behar, we may understand the word anâryya used by Yâska as meaning an Âryan tribe which did not follow Âryan rites, but were in the same condition as the Vrâtyas described by him in p. 33, and by Prof. Aufrecht at pp. 138 f. of the same volume, who were admissible by a particular rite within the Brahmanical pale. From Atharva Veda, v. 22, 14, however, it would appear that the Magadhas were regarded by the writer with enmity, and the people designated in the verse before us as Kikatas, are described as hostile or indifferent to Âryan rites. (See Sanskrit Texts ii. 362 ff. and Wilson's note in loco.)

^{page 294 note 1} As however it is said in the same verse that Indra subdues the terrible, and brings forward others, it is possible that these expressions may be meant merely to declare Indra's absolute control over the destinies of men, and to describe the Nemesis that overtakes pride, with an indication of the Herodotean idea (Herod, iii. 40; vii. 10, and 46.)

^{page 294 note 2} This word brahma-dvish might mean either “hater of priests,” or “hater of devotion,” but in the R.V. it seems to have the latter sense. Sâyaṇa, on ii. 23, renders it mantrûṇûṃ brâhmaṇûnû ṁ vâ dveshṭuḥ, “hater of mantras (hymns), or of Brâhmans;” and similarly, on v. 42, 9, brâhmaṇa-dveshṭrîn mantra-dveshṭrîn vâ, “hater of Brâhmans or of mantras;” whilst on iii. 30, 17, he explains it by brâhmaṇa-dvesha-kâriṂe, “hater of Brâhmans;” and the same on vi. 22, 8; vi. 52, 3; vii. 104, 2; viii. 45, 23; and viii. 53, 1. The context of ii. 23, 4; v. 42, 9; vi. 52, 2, 3; x. 160, 4, seems to be in favour of the sense “haters of devotion,” and the other passages contain nothing inconsistent with this interpretation. No use can therefore be made of this word to prove the importance of priests in the Vedic age.

^{page 295 note 1} The demons mentioned in the Rig-veda are called by various names, such as Rakshas, Yâtu, Yâtudhâna, of which the feminine Yâtudhânî is also found, and apparently also Dasyu and Dûsa. The word piṣâchi (masculine) also occurs in R.V. i. 133, 5,Google Scholar and piṣâeha frequently in the A.V. The Yûtus are conceived as of different kinds, ṣva-yâtu, ulûka-yûtu, susulâka-yâtu, koka-yâtu, ṣuparṇa-yûtu, gṛdhra-yâtu, the dog-, owl-, vulture-, etc. etc. formed Yâtus (vii. 104, 22); and ṣaphûruj yâtus, perhaps, such as wound with their hoofs (x. 87, 12). Indra and Agni are the destroyers of the Yâtus who seek to disturb and vitiate the sacrifices and to slay these deities (vii. 104, 18, 20 f.; x. 87, 9ff.). The Yâtus are described as devouring, insatiable, eaters of raw flesh, of the flesh of men and cattle, drinkers of milk, haters of devotion, maleficent, glaring-eyed, furious, the offspring of darkness (vii. 104 and x. 87 passim).

^{page 296 note 1} Anṛta-devaḥ: i.e. asatya-bhûtâ devâ yasya, “one whose gods are untrue, or unreal” (Sâyaṇa). Prof. Goldstücker s.v. interprets the word as meaning, “one to whom the gods are untrue.” Prof. Max Müller renders the phrase, “If I had worshipped false gods.” Prof. Roth who had originally s.v. taken the word to mean “a false prayer.” withdraws this sense, and adheres to that given hy Sâyaṇa, at the close of his article on deva.

^{page 296 note 2} Roth s.v. explains the word ayâtu as meaning, “not demoniacal, free from demoniacal (magic).” Goldstücker s.v. defines the word, “a no-demon, a being different from, or the reverse of, a fiend.”

^{page 296 note 3} See Prof. Goldstücker's Diet. s.v. ayâtu.

^{page 296 note 4} Quoted with its context in Sanskrit Texts, iv. 345.Google Scholar

^{page 296 note 5} Or, “impelled,” jûjuvuḥ. This is the sense given by Roth s.v. who explains the words thus: “Demons do not impel us:” i.e. “We are not in league with demons.” Compare deva-jûta, “god-inspired,” or “god-impelled,” applied to Visvâmitra in iii. 53, 9; and, on the other hand, dasyujûtaya in vi. 24, 8, where it is said: “Indra does not bow to the strong nor the firm, nor to the bold man impelled by a Dasyu (or evil spirit).”

^{page 297 note 1} The sense of the following words na vandanâ vedyâbhiḥ is obscure.

^{page 297 note 2} Ṣiṣnadevâḥ. The same word occurs in x. 99, 3: “When, irresistible, he conquered by his force the treasures of the (city) with a hundred gates, slaying the priapic (or long-tailed) demons.” (See Sanskrit Texts, iv. 346Google Scholar). If this word ṣiṣnadeva is correctly rendered as above, the demons in question may have some affinity with the Gandharvas, who are represented as objects of apprehension in A.V. iv. 37,Google Scholar in consequence of their propensity for women, whom, though themselves hairy like dogs or monkeys, they attempted to seduce by assuming an agreeable form (vv. 11, 12). The author of the hymn accordingly wishes that they may be emasculated (v. 7). [Professor Aufrecht thinks that ṣiṣnadevâḥ, being a bahuvrîhi compound, must mean “lascivious” (ṣiṣnaṁ devo yeshâm).] These Gandharvas are also described (vv. 8, 9) as havir-adân, “eaters of oblations.” In A.V. xviii. 2, 28,Google Scholar the Dasyus (who must here be demons) are spoken of as mingling with the Pitris under the appearance of friends, though they had no right to partake in the oblations; and Agni is besought to drive them away from the sacrifice. Compare the disputes regarding the admission of Rudra to a share in sacrifices, Sanskrit Texts, iv. 203, 241, 312 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 298 note 1} Perhaps, however, it is unnecessary to resort to this supposition in order to account for the dread and hatred of Rakshases which prevailed in the Vedic age. Such horror and hatred of demons appear to be natural to men in a certain stage of civilization. See Lecky's, History of the Rise and Progress of Rationalism, i. 17 f.Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 1} I may mention for the benefit of any Indian Student who may see this article that this hitherto undiscovered variety of Brâhman, who was never anything but a “sky-flower,” created by the prolific imagination of the author of this verse, was not again heard of, as far as I am aware, till he was resuscitated as Râvaṇa by the author of the Râmâyaṇa and his followers, who describe the enemy of Râma and ravisher of Sîtâ as a monstrous Brâhman with ten heads.