^{page 437 note 1} The B.MSS. differ from the A. and Ca. MSS. by putting instead of The repetition of is a slip of the writer of A.D.

^{page 437 note 2} All B.MSS. have right, while the A. MSS. have the mistake which reappears in the still more corrupt Ca.

^{page 437 note 3} All the B. MSS. blunder in the third vowel of the A. MSS. are right; Ca. blunders in leaving out the anusvâra.

The patronymic name of Asamâati, which I suppose to be is corrupt in all MSS. The A. MSS. agree in except B. 4, which has been corrected, and C. W., which has the slight variation of while the B. MSS. support throughout at all events the vṛiddhi vowel of the third syllable, which also appears in the faulty reading of Ca. B. 1 and 2 are more closely united, and so are B. 3, B.M., and B.D.; the former giving the latter See R.V. x, 60, 5.Google Scholar On Asamâti, see Lassen, , Indische Alterthumskunde (first edition), vol. i. p. xiii. note 31;Google ScholarColebrooke, , Misc. Essays, i. p. 25.Google Scholar

^{page 437 note 4} B.M. stands alone in furnishing the right reading the correction probably of an individual copyist, unsupported even by the nearest MS. B.D. The short vowel in the second syllable is equally peculiar to B.M.

^{page 437 note 5} The right reading is nearly preserved in A. Other MSS. belonging to this class, C. M. and A.D. slide into B. 4 seems to give and this is the reading of Ca. The B. MSS. add to it a new mistake

^{page 437 note 6} The A. class and Ca. have throughout the right reading followed by which I think is meant for B. 1 and 2 have taken as one word, and left without the thus rendering it unintelligible. B. 3, B.M. and B.D. have the same lacuna.

^{page 437 note 7} The patronymic has again puzzled the scribes. The A. and Ca. MSS. now agree in or B. 4 brings in the long in which seems to come from B. unless it is accidental. B. 1 and 2 have and to which they inclined before; while B, 3, B.M., and B.D. approach to their former blunder

^{page 437 note 8} The anusvâra in is the characteristic mark; of the A. class. B 1 and 2 are held together by their common lacuna; B. 3, B.M. and B.D. by the anusvâra on the second syllable.

^{page 437 note 9} The spelling of seems to point to The verb to dwell, may be construed with a locative, in the sense of “to dwell with.”

^{page 437 note 10} is probably intended for The readings of the different MSS. might seem to suggest but I prefer because this word is used in the Tâṇḍya-brahmaṇa, xiii.

^{page 438 note 11} The A. MSS. agree on for the of B. 4 is from the margin. The B. MSS. on the contrary all point to

^{page 438 note 12} marks the A. and Ca. MSS.; the B. MSS.

^{page 438 note 13} The A. MSS. agree in instead of which is intended by the B. MSS. B. 4 has the B. reading, and alone of all MSS. supplies the reading Ca. mixes up the two readings.

^{page 438 note 14} In the lacuna after and in we have marked features of the entire B. class. B. 4 has its own peculiar mistake, which could only refer to the two Asuras, while it is meant for the Ikshvâkus, i.e. Asamâti and the Rathaproshṭhas.

^{page 439 note 15} The A. class is again marked by retaining the correct though not always clearly written, whereas the B. MSS. have clearly

^{page 439 note 16} The B. MSS. again agree in the mistake

^{page 439 note 17} The B. class is sharply marked by the lacuna of and again by instead of and the short vowel in

^{page 439 note 18} The omission of shows the close relationship of B. 3, B.M. & B.D.

^{page 439 note 19} The original reading was probably cf.Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa, I. 1, 4, 15,

^{page 439 note 20} The mistake in A. D., A., C. M., and C.W. indicates a closer relationship between these three MSS.

^{page 439 note 21} The lacuna after in the B. MSS. is important; likewise the coincidences between B. 1 and B. 2 on one side, and between B 3, B.M. and B.D. on the other.

^{page 439 note 22} is a mistake that distinguishes the B. MSS. from the A. and Ca.MSS. in C.M. is a mere lapsus calami, repeated in C.W. So is in A.D. and B.4, and again intended for

^{page 439 note 23} The A. MSS. agree in instead of Ca. stands alone with while the B. MSS. just miss the right reading by the omission of one B. 3 has where the long â is a blunder of the copyist.

^{page 441 note 1} The name of Laupâyana receives no further explanation. It may be mentioned, however, that Lopâmudrâ is the name of the wife of Agastya (R.V. i, 179),Google Scholar and that Agastya is quoted in these hymns as the ancestor, it would seem, of the race.

^{page 441 note 2}

^{page 441 note 3}

^{page 441 note 3} Sâyaṇa has

^{page 441 note 4} Nirṛiti, according to Sâyaṇa, removes the vital spirits from the body.

^{page 442 note 1} This translation is very doubtful, and the text decidedly incorrect. might be taken as a nominative dual, but the use of the particle is not in accordance with the ordinary style of the Brâahmaṇnas. We must wait for the help of other MSS.

^{page 442 note 2} This refers to the hymn R. V. v. 24.Google Scholar

^{page 443 note 1} The text is printed from a MS. kindly presented to me by Dr. Bhao Daji, and which I mark B. The various readings (H.) are taken from a MS. belonging to a small but valuable collection presented to the Bodleian Library by Dr. Fitzedward Hall, and which, by an unfortunate mistake, was in the printed catalogue mixed up with other collections. MS. b. was sent to me by my friend Dr. Bühler. Another MS., belonging to Dr. Fitaedward Hall, is an incorrect copy of H.; and another, just received from Bombay, is unfortunately only a second copy of the same original from which b. was taken.

^{page 443 note 2} H.

^{page 443 note 3} H.

^{page 443 note 4} H.

^{page 443 note 5} H.; the first and second lines wanting in b.

^{page 443 note 6} b.

^{page 443 note 7} H.

^{page 443 note 8} H.

^{page 443 note 9} H. b.

^{page 443 note 10} H.

^{page 443 note 11} H.

^{page 443 note 12} b.

^{page 443 note 13} b.

^{page 443 note 14} H. B.

^{page 443 note 15} B. b.

^{page 443 note 16} H. The Anukramaṇî-bhâshya says, The Nîtimanjarî gives

^{page 443 note 17} H. b.

^{page 443 note 18} b.

^{page 443 note 19} H.

^{page 443 note 20} is a conjecture confirmed by the Nîtimanjarî.

^{page 444 note 1} H.

^{page 444 note 2} H.

^{page 444 note 3} B.

^{page 444 note 4} H.

^{page 444 note 5} H.

^{page 444 note 6} H.

^{page 444 note 7} b.

^{page 444 note 8} b.

^{page 444 note 9} B.

^{page 444 note 10} b.

^{page 444 note 11} H.

^{page 444 note 12} deest H.

^{page 444 note 13} H.

^{page 444 note 14} B. s.m.

^{page 444 note 15} H.

^{page 444 note 16} H.

^{page 444 note 17} B.

^{page 444 note 18} b.

^{page 444 note 19} b.

^{page 444 note 20} b.

^{page 444 note 21} The Whole line wanting in H.

^{page 444 note 22} H.

^{page 444 note 23} H.

^{page 444 note 24} H.

^{page 444 note 25} H.

^{page 444 note 26} H.

^{page 444 note 27} B. b. The first of asunîti ought to be pronounced MSS. H. b. write

^{page 444 note 28} H.

^{page 444 note 29} H.

^{page 444 note 30} H.

^{page 444 note 31} b.

^{page 444 note 32} H.

^{page 444 note 33} H.

^{page 444 note 34} b.

^{page 444 note 35} H. B.

^{page 444 note 36} B.

^{page 444 note 37} H.

^{page 444 note 38} H.

^{page 444 note 39} H.

^{page 444 note 40} b.

^{page 444 note 41} H.

^{page 445 note 1} H.

^{page 445 note 2} H.

^{page 445 note 3} H.

^{page 445 note 4} b.

^{page 445 note 5} b.

^{page 445 note 6} b.

^{page 445 note 7} This line wanting in H.

^{page 445 note 8} b.

^{page 445 note 9} b.

^{page 445 note 10} H.

^{page 445 note 11} b.

^{page 445 note 12} Sây. Nîtim.; deest in H.

^{page 445 note 13} H. B.

^{page 445 note 14} b.

^{page 445 note 15} Sây

^{page 445 note 16} b.

^{page 445 note 17} H.

^{page 445 note 18} b.

^{page 445 note 19} b.

^{page 445 note 20} H.

^{page 445 note 21} H.

^{page 445 note 22} H.

^{page 445 note 23} H.

^{page 445 note 24} H.

^{page 445 note 25} b.

^{page 445 note 26} H.

^{page 445 note 27} H.

^{page 445 note 28} H.

^{page 445 note 29} H.

^{page 445 note 30} b.

^{page 445 note 31} H.

^{page 446 note 1} This change into doves is not mentioned elsewhere, and in a passage of the commentary on the Sarvânukrama we read

^{page 448 note 1} This line is not in the Bṛihaddevatâ

^{page 449 note 1} Sâyaṇa must have read , instead of

^{page 451 note 1} Or, we have come to a country belonging to the life-leading goddess, to Asunîti; not to Asamâti, as might be expected.

^{page 451 note 2} Or, conquering an enemy called Bhajeratha.

^{page 452 note 1} Or, o Subandhu, this is thy mother, this the father, this thy son, come here; all have come, full of grief.

^{page 454 note 1} Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, vol. ix. p. xxii. 1855.Google Scholar The heavenly host would be divyo janaḥ (R.V. vi. 22, 9).Google Scholar

^{page 456 note 1} Whether it is Akuli or Âkuli cannot be settled from the passages hitherto known. It may be right to mention that in the S'atapatha-brâhmaṇa the MSS. really give , which is explained by the commentary as

^{page 456 note 2} It may be right to mention that the MSS. of the Tâṇḍya-brâhmaṇa really give , not , as printed by Boehtlingk in his Dictionary, s.v. The text and commentary of this passage are given on p. 13.

^{page 456 note 3} R.V. v. 24.Google Scholar Sâyaṇa, in his commentary on the Tâṇḍya-brâhmaṇa, calls this hymn tṛicha, consisting of three verses, which would have been appropriate, according to the account of the Bṛihaddevatâ, while in the Rig-veda there are four lines, forming two verses.

^{page 456 note 4} is explained by , both meaning “to Cherish.”

^{page 457 note 1} The sacrifice was considered as a thread or a connecting link between God and men. See M. M., , Die Todtenbestattung bei den Brahmanen, Zeitschrift det D. M. Gesellschaft, vol. ix. p. xxii.Google Scholar

^{page 458 note 1} lf jîváse and dṛiṣé are called infinitives, why not krátve and dáksháya? The name of infinitive might well be given up and replaced by a more appropriate term.

^{page 458 note 2} It is more natural to join naḥ with manaḥ and translate, our soul. In that case the subject of the hymn would change, and what follows would certainly harmonise with this view.

^{page 458 note 3} On Yama Vaivasvata, the king of the departed, see Ueber die Todten-bestattung, in the Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft, D. M., ix. p. xiv.Google Scholar

^{page 458 note 4} Marîchî does not occur again in the R.V. (exc. márîchînam, x. 177, 1)Google Scholar, but there is no reason to doubt that it had in the Veda the same meaning as in the later literature, viz., ray, splendour. Pravat, which, by professor Roth, is given as a substantive only, must be taken as an adjective, not only in this, but in several other passages, such as vii. 32, 27. It means ‘moving onward,’ possibly ‘eastern,’ like prâch.

^{page 459 note 1} There is clearly not much sense or coherence in this verse as translated according to the commentary of Sâyaṇa. Sâyaṇa is guided by the traditional notion that this hymn refers to certain details in the story of the death and resurrection of Subandhu, but even thus his explanation can hardly be called natural and happy. The train of thought which he discovers in the words of the poet is this: May the life of Subandhu be increased or advanced, as persons advance who stand in a chariot. Having lost his life Subandhu regains it; may the goddẹss of mischief fly away! This seems easy enough at first sight, but difficulties soon appear on further consideration. The first half verse means certainly, May life be lengthened, or, life is lengthened; and it will be best to take this in a general sense, without thinking much of Subandhu. Then follows a simile. Now that simile does not speak of one person, but of two, sthâ'târâ iva. Sthâ'tṛi, with the accent on the first (not to be confounded with sthâtrí) means a driver, not one who stands, but one who makes stand, one who controls horses. Thus Indra is frequently called sthâtâr harîṇâm, not he who stands on the horses, but he who makes them stand, who holds, checks, and drives them (viii. 24, 17; 33, 12; 46, 1)Google Scholar. He is also called sthâ'tí rathasya (iii. 45, 2)Google Scholar, or sthâtṛi by itself. R.V. i. 33, 5Google Scholar; vi. 41, 3, harivaḥ sthâtaḥ ugra. The Maruts are called simply sthâtâraḥ, riders or rulers (R.V. v. 87, 6)Google Scholar, and jagataḥ sthâtaḥ is used R.V. vi. 49, 6Google Scholar, and seems to mean ‘ruler of the earth.’

The real difficulty, however, lies in the dual. Why two riders instead of one? We can hardly say in the Veda metri causâ, nor can I think of any explanation except by ascribing to the simile a more special reference to the two most famous drivers in the Veda, the two Aśvins, the vṛishṇaḥ sthâtârá (R.V. i. 181, 3),Google Scholar the rathîtamau (R.V. i. 182, 2,Google Scholar etc.). As in their original conception, the two Aśvins represent the succession of day and night, light and darkness, morning and evening, and other correlative powers, the simile becomes even more telling, if taken in that special sense. But, it may be said, why not take the explanation of Sâyaṇa? Why not take kratumat in the sense of driver, and then translate, “like two who stand on a chariot are moved on by the charioteer.” For the simple reason, that the adjective kratumat is never used in the Veda as a substantive, least df all in the special sense of sârathi or charioteer. I confess I can make nothing of the instrumental kratumatâ, but I have only to change it into kratumantâ and it becomes the recognised epithet of the Aśvins, the clever, the wise, cf. R.V. i. 183, 2Google Scholar, suvṛít ráthaḥ vartate yân abhí kshâ'm yát tishṭhathaḥ krátumantâ ánu pṛikshé. To read sthâtrâ iva kratumatâ rathasya would sanction a hiatus, which might be accepted if supported by the authority of MSS., but which I hesitate to adopt in a conjectural reading,

The meaning of the next sentence is even more difficult. Chyávána, though it might mean fallen, does not occur in the Veda in the sense of departed, dead. In R.V. x. 61, 2,Google Scholarchỵavânaḥ means moving on, arriving; and the same sense is, by Professor Roth, assigned to other forms of chyu.

The expression uttavîti artham is without a parallel in the Rig-veda.

Langlois translates: Que cette existence nouvelle soit prolongéee, et menée (par le maître de la vie) comme un char l'est par un habile écuyer. Ainsi celui qui était tombé se rélève. Que Nirriti s'eloigue.

^{page 460 note 1} This is again a difficult verse, and, as it stands, simply unintelligible. I read râyo instead of râye in order to get at anything like sense. The two nu's show that the first half-verse contains two sentences. The second of these is clear, literally, our food is possessed of repositories, i.e. our garners are full of food. The first also must have a nominative, and this we get by reading râyo instead of râye. Sâman is a locative, which I derive from sâman, in the sense of hearth or house. This meaning is conjectural; but there are several passages in the Veda where sâman cannot well mean song or poem. Whether it be derived from san, to acquire, so as to mean acquisition, property, or from so, to finish, so as to mean establishment, sâman seems to have some meaning like hearth or home in passages such as R.V. viii. 89, 7;Google Scholar ix. 111, 2; 145, 3. However, I only propose this interpretation until a better one can be found, for I cannot bring myself to translate, “When there is a song sung, there are riches.”

^{page 460 note 2} There is nothing to show that Asunîti is a female deity. Yâska, (x. 39Google Scholar) takes Asunîti as a masculine, Sâyaṇa as a feminine. It may be a name for Yama, as Prof. Roth supposes; but it may also be a simple invocation, one of the many names of the deity. The metre requires a syllable in the third half verse, which may easily be supplied by reading saṁ-dḥîṣîke.

^{page 460 note 3} Anumati means compliance, grace, and Sâyaṇa takes Anumati as a female deity, a personification of grace. Anumati, however, is likewise a name of one of the phases of the moon, which go by the names of Anumati, Râkâ, Sinívâlí, and Kuhû. In a prayer for life the moon Would naturally come in for an invocatíon.

^{page 460 note 4} The explanation of pathyâ by speech is evidently old, for Sâyana supports it by a passage from the Brâhmaṇa. It must be confessed, too, that speech would be more appropriate in this passage; yet pathyâ in the Rig-veda means path or walk, and only by a well-established metaphor could this have been uaed to express speech.

^{page 461 note 1} Subandhu may be a proper name, but even then it would mean good friend, and nothing is lost therefore by keeping to the natural meaning.

^{page 461 note 2} I take this and some of the later verses as formulas used by wise men or women in effecting medical cures. Such formulas are often very meaningless, and, at all events, we must not look in them for any deep wisdom. The suffixes ke and kâ, used for forming repetitive adverbs, are curious. In later Sanskrit we have only ṣas, the Greek kis or xa.

^{page 461 note 3} Another verse used for incantations or witchcraft. As the poet speaks of the ox that brought (i.e. that is in the habit of bringing) the chariot of Uṣînârâṇî, we should naturally think of the chariot of the dawn. Sâyaṇa, however, takes uṣînârâṇi in the sense of a medicinal herb, and it may have been so understood by the medical charlatans of India.

^{page 461 note 4} Most of the epithets here used of the man to whom praise is offered refer to Indra, who, in the fifth verse, is invoked by name. Asamâti, it is true, does not occur again as applied to Indra, and hence the commentators might easily have been led to take it as a proper name. But in asamâtyojas, of incomparable strength, asamâti clearly is the same as asamâna, incomparable. Hence I surrender king Asamâti and all that the Brahmans tell us about him. I believe he took his origin from this verse, and the same verse must be his grave. Professor Roth, if I understand him right, takes the same view. He takes nitoṣana in the sense of dripping, evidently connecting it with ratha. But the verb tuṣ expresses sound, and the sense of roaring is appropriate to all its derivatives.

^{page 461 note 5} Bhajeratha must be taken as the name of a people or a country, like Ikshvâku in the next verse. It may be a dialectic form of Bhagîratha.

Niyayinam ratham is a simile introduced without a comparative particle. The adjectives which precede refer to Indra, not to ratha.

^{page 461 note 6} I tried to explain pavîravân and apaviraván in the Beiträge zur Vergleichenden Sprachforschung, vol. iii. p. 444Google Scholar seq. Though the Pada text does not give pavîra-vân, yet I think it right to give up my explanation of pavî-ravân, because I now see that it is possible to give a grammatical explanation of pavîra. Professor Roth derives pavîra from pavi, but this is impossible in Sanskrit. Pavi, with the Taddhita ra would give pavira, like sushira from sushi (Pâṇ. v. 2, 107)Google Scholar, but never pavîra. There is, however, the possibility, of which I had not thought before, of classing pavîra with such words as śarîra, formed by the Uṇâdi îran from śṛi, with guṇa of the radical vowel (Uṇâdi-Sûtras, ed. Aufrecht, , iv. 30Google Scholar). As this seems unobjectionable, I now take pavîra-vân as a possessive adjective in the sense of ‘possessed of a thunderbolt or a weapon.’ We thus get a proper climax which was wanting in former translations. As to pavîrava, it may now be explained as formed by the possessive Taddhita va (Pâṇ, . v. 2, 109Google Scholar), like keśava from keśa.

^{page 462 note 1} This is the first mention of Ikshvâku, and the only one in the Rig-veda. I take it not as the name of a king, but as the name of a people, probably the people who inhabited Bhâjeratha, the country washed by the northern Gangâ or the Bhâgîrathî.

^{page 462 note 2} I think it best to take Rathaproshṭha as the name of a tribe. The word does not occur again in the Rig-veda. Professor Roth seems to take it in the sense of chariot, or seat of a chariot, but in that case the prayer for preservation of power would not be appropriate, for kshatra always refers to powers wielded by gods or men. We have seen two rare proper names in the preceding verses, and we need not be surprised at a third, though none of them occurs again in the Rig-veda. In the Mahâbhârata the Proshṭhas occur as a people.

^{page 462 note 3} Another difficult verse, chiefly on account of the word nadbhyaḥ, which does not occur again, Professor Roth derives it from nah, in the sense of rope, and he compares akshânah (R.V. x. 53, 7Google Scholar), fastened to the axle, the name of a horse. I confess I do not see how, with such a word in the dative or ablative, any sense can be elicited from our verse. If one might indulge in conjectures, I should read naptṛibhyaḥ, for Agastya occurs both with three and four syllables. But why should so simple a word have been changed into nadbhyaḥ? The Pada gives nat-bhyaḥ, and this Sâyaṇa derives evidently from the verb nand, which has given rise to several derivatives in the sense of son, or relative, or descendant. It might be possible, etymologically, to derive nah from nah or nabh (from which nâbhi, relationship), and to take it in the sense of relatives, literally, ties. But nadbhyaḥ may also be an old dat. plur. of napât. The Pada-form of napât, if we may judge from the fem. naptî, neptis, would have been napt. This, before bhyaḥ, would have been regularly changed into nap, This, with bhyaḥ, would have become nabbhyaḥ. Now in order to avoid the want of euphony, we see that ab-hyaḥ is changed to ad-bhyaḥ. Why not nab-bhyaḥ into nad-bhyaḥ?

The Ṛishis Bandhu, Subandhu, S'rutabandhu, and Devabandhu, are called the sister-sons of Agastya in the Mantrârshâdhyâya. See Ind. Stud. iii. 459.Google Scholar

^{page 462 note 4} The last verses are evidently formulas used for restoring health or life. Like most of such formulas they are not always very coherent or very wise. Their efficacy would seem to depend on a certain amount of mysterious obscurity. Observe the apparently irregular gender in ayam mâtâ, also in ayaṁ jîvâtuḥ, for jîvâtuḥ is usually feminine. It may be, however, that the speaker, who evidently is the enchanter or mesmeriser, points to himself, saying, as if with the Greek δδє, “This is the mother, this is the father, this is thy life, i.e. I who bring thee back to life.” Professor Roth translates prasarpaṇa by unterkommen. Does he mean livelihood? The nir ihi, come forth! seems to show that prasarpaṇa means the escaping of the soul from the place where it is supposed to be held captive.

^{page 463 note 1} Varatrâ means a guard, i.e. a guard chain. Dâdhâra I take to be the first person, considering the construction of verse 10.