Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1p. 57). - I, 72, 2, read vatsdm ; I, 72, 6, read pastii; I, 76, 3, read dhadkshy ; I, 82, 1, read yada. I, 83, 3. Rosen was right in giving 4samyattah. I gave dsamyatah 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 pada (M.M. vol.i, p.677). Thesame applies to indra, VI, 41, 4,(Aufr. p. 429) instead of indra (M. M. vol. iii, p. 734) ; to agne, 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 pada, ought to have the accent on the first syllable, indra (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, nara# should have no accent ; whereas in VII, 91, 3, it should have the accent on the first syllable. In VIII, 8, 19, vipanyd 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 yata (M.M. vol. i, p. 708), not yatha (Aufr. Pp. 72). PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixi I, 90, 1, read viguniti; I, 94, 11, read yavasddo (M. M. vol. i, p. 766), not yayasddo (Aufr. p. 80). I, 118, 9. abhibhitim (Aufr. p. 105) instead of abhibhdtim (M. M. vol. i, p. 957) cannot be right, considering that in all other passages abh{bhati has the accent on the second syllable. S 1, S 2, S 3 have the accent on the i. I, 128, 4. ghritasrir (Aufr. p. 117) instead of ghrstasrir (M. M. vol. ii, p. 52) is wrong. I, 144, 2, read parivritak (M. M. vol. ii, p. 155) instead of parivritah (Aufr. p. 133). I, 145, 5. Professor Aufrecht (p. 134) gives upamasydm, both in the Samhita and Pada texts, as having the accent on the last syllable. I had placed the accent on the penultimate, (Pada, upa-mdsy4m, 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. pdrtixi (Aufr. p. 136) instead of purtini (M. M. vol. ii, p. 170) does not rest, as far as I know, on the authority of any MSS. S1,S 2, S 3 have puriizi. I, 151, 7. gakkkatho (Aufr. p. 137) should be gaékhatho (M. M. vol. ii, p. 181). I, 161, 12. All the Pada MSS. read prd dbravit, separating the two words and accentuating each. Though the accent is irregular, yet, considering the peculiar construction of the verse, in which pra and pré are used as adverbs rather than as prepositions, I should not venture with Professor Aufrecht (p. 144) to write pra abravit. The MSS. likewise have 4 d4gagan, I, 161, 4; and pra aga, VIII, 48, 2, not pra ag4#, as Aufrecht gives in his second edition. I, 163, 11. dhra4giman (Aufr. p. 147) instead of dhragimn (M. M. vol. ii, p. 245) is wrong.
2144) to write pra abravit. The MSS. likewise have 4 d4gagan, I, 161, 4; and pra aga, VIII, 48, 2, not pra ag4#, as Aufrecht gives in his second edition. I, 163, 11. dhra4giman (Aufr. p. 147) instead of dhragimn (M. M. vol. ii, p. 245) is wrong. I, 163, 13. gamy4 (Aufr. p. 148) instead of gamy4 (M. M. vol. ii, p. 246) is wrong. I, 164, 17, read pareza (M. M. vol. ii, p. 259) instead of paréza (Aufr. p. 149). I, 164, 38. The first ikyu% 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 scem a small lxii VEDIC HYMNS. 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 étan (vol. ii, p. 293) with the accent on the first syllable. Professor Aufrecht alters this into et&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. ydsishza (Aufr. p. 154) instead of ydsish/a (M. M. vol. ii, p. 298) is not supported by any MS. I, 169, 7, instead of patayanta (Aufr. p. 158), read patayanta (M. M. vol. ii, p. 322). 1,174, 7. kiyavakam (Aufr. p. 162) should be kiyavazam (M. M. vol. ii, p. 340). I, 177, 1. yuktd, which I had adopted from MS. S 3 (prima manu), is not supported by other MSS., though P 2 reads yuttk4. Professor Aufrecht, who had retained yukt& in the text, has afterwards corrected it to yuktv4, and in this he was right. In I, 177, 2, géhi for y4hi is wrong. I, 188, 4. astrizan (Aufr. p. 171) instead of astrzzan (M. M. vol. ii, p. 395) can only be a misprint. II, 29, 6. kartad (Aufr. p. 203) instead of kartdd (M. M. vol. ii, p. 560) is wrong. II, 40, 4. Aakra (Aufr. p. 214) instead of Zakra (M. M. vol. ii, p. 614) is wrong. III, 7, 7. gué (Aufr. p. 226) instead of gu (M. M. vol. ii, p- 666) is wrong ; likewise III, 30, 10, g4A# (Aufr. p. 241) instead of g4% (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 {ndro 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 Sayama takes indra as a vocative, and likewise the Nirukta. III, 50, 2. Professor Aufrecht (p. 258) gives asya, both in the Samhita and Pada, without the accent on the last syllable. But all the MSS. that I know (S 1, S 2, S 3, Py, PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixiti
3III, 50, 2. Professor Aufrecht (p. 258) gives asya, both in the Samhita and Pada, without the accent on the last syllable. But all the MSS. that I know (S 1, S 2, S 3, Py, PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixiti 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. Pp. 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 4mandan. III, 53, 18. asi (Aufr. p. 262) instead of dsi(M. M. vol. ii, P- 934) is wrong, because hi requires that the accent should remain on asi. S 1,S 2,S 3, P 1, P 2 have asi. IV, 4, 7. sva 4yushe (Aufr. p. 279) instead of svd 4yushi (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 4yushi. IV, 5, 7- drupitam, in the Pada, (Aufr. p. 280) instead of 4rupitam (M. M. vol. iii, p. 45) is right, as had been shown in the Pratiskhya, Sdtra 179, though by a misprint the long 4 of the Samhita had been put in the place of the short a of the Pada. IV, 5, 9. read gauk (M. M. vol. iii, p. 46) instead of gdh (Aufr. p. 281). IV, 15, 2. y&ti, with the accent on the first syllable, is supported by all MSS. against yati (Aufr. p. 287). The same applies to yati in IV, 29, 2, and to varante in IV, 31, 9- IV, 18, 11. ami, without any accent (Aufr. p. 293), instead of ami (M. M. vol. iii, p. 105) is wrong, because amf is never unaccented. IV, 21, 9. no, without an accent (Auf. p. 296), instead of no (M. M. vol. iii, p. 120) is wrong. IV, 26, 3. atithigvam (Aufr. p. 300) instead of atithigvam (M. M. vol. iii, p. 140) and VI, 47, 22, atithigvasya (Aufr. Pp. 437) instead of atithigvasya (M. M. vol. iii, p. 776) are wrong, for atithigva never occurs again except with the accent on the last syllable) The MSS. do not vary. Nor do they vary in the accentuation of kutsa: hence kutsdm (Aufr. p. 300) should be kutsam (M. M. vol. iii. p. 139). xiv VEDIC HYMNS. IV, 36, 6. Professor Aufrecht (p. 309) has altered the accent of &vishu% into Avishiz, but the MSS. are unanimous in favour of 4vishuh (M. M. vol. iii, p. 181). Again in IV, 41, 9, the MSS. support the accentuation of 4gman (M. M. vol. iii, p. 200), while Professor Aufrecht (p. 313) has altered it to agman. IV, 42, 9. adasat, being preceded by hi, ought to have the accent; (Aufrecht, p. 314, has addsat without the accent.) For the same reason, V, 29, 3, dvindat (M. M. vol. iii, p. 342) ought not to have been altered to avindat (Auf. p. 344). IV, 50, 4. vyéman is a misprint for vyoman.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1p. 57). - I, 72, 2, read vatsdm ; I, 72, 6, read pastii; I, 76, 3, read dhadkshy ; I, 82, 1, read yada. I, 83, 3. Rosen was right in giving 4samyattah. I gave dsamyatah 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 pada (M.M. vol.i, p.677). Thesame applies to indra, VI, 41, 4,(Aufr. p. 429) instead of indra (M. M. vol. iii, p. 734) ; to agne, 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 pada, ought to have the accent on the first syllable, indra (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, nara# should have no accent ; whereas in VII, 91, 3, it should have the accent on the first syllable. In VIII, 8, 19, vipanyd 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 yata (M.M. vol. i, p. 708), not yatha (Aufr. Pp. 72). PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixi I, 90, 1, read viguniti; I, 94, 11, read yavasddo (M. M. vol. i, p. 766), not yayasddo (Aufr. p. 80). I, 118, 9. abhibhitim (Aufr. p. 105) instead of abhibhdtim (M. M. vol. i, p. 957) cannot be right, considering that in all other passages abh{bhati has the accent on the second syllable. S 1, S 2, S 3 have the accent on the i. I, 128, 4. ghritasrir (Aufr. p. 117) instead of ghrstasrir (M. M. vol. ii, p. 52) is wrong. I, 144, 2, read parivritak (M. M. vol. ii, p. 155) instead of parivritah (Aufr. p. 133). I, 145, 5. Professor Aufrecht (p. 134) gives upamasydm, both in the Samhita and Pada texts, as having the accent on the last syllable. I had placed the accent on the penultimate, (Pada, upa-mdsy4m, 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. pdrtixi (Aufr. p. 136) instead of purtini (M. M. vol. ii, p. 170) does not rest, as far as I know, on the authority of any MSS. S1,S 2, S 3 have puriizi. I, 151, 7. gakkkatho (Aufr. p. 137) should be gaékhatho (M. M. vol. ii, p. 181). I, 161, 12. All the Pada MSS. read prd dbravit, separating the two words and accentuating each. Though the accent is irregular, yet, considering the peculiar construction of the verse, in which pra and pré are used as adverbs rather than as prepositions, I should not venture with Professor Aufrecht (p. 144) to write pra abravit. The MSS. likewise have 4 d4gagan, I, 161, 4; and pra aga, VIII, 48, 2, not pra ag4#, as Aufrecht gives in his second edition. I, 163, 11. dhra4giman (Aufr. p. 147) instead of dhragimn (M. M. vol. ii, p. 245) is wrong.
2144) to write pra abravit. The MSS. likewise have 4 d4gagan, I, 161, 4; and pra aga, VIII, 48, 2, not pra ag4#, as Aufrecht gives in his second edition. I, 163, 11. dhra4giman (Aufr. p. 147) instead of dhragimn (M. M. vol. ii, p. 245) is wrong. I, 163, 13. gamy4 (Aufr. p. 148) instead of gamy4 (M. M. vol. ii, p. 246) is wrong. I, 164, 17, read pareza (M. M. vol. ii, p. 259) instead of paréza (Aufr. p. 149). I, 164, 38. The first ikyu% 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 scem a small lxii VEDIC HYMNS. 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 étan (vol. ii, p. 293) with the accent on the first syllable. Professor Aufrecht alters this into et&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. ydsishza (Aufr. p. 154) instead of ydsish/a (M. M. vol. ii, p. 298) is not supported by any MS. I, 169, 7, instead of patayanta (Aufr. p. 158), read patayanta (M. M. vol. ii, p. 322). 1,174, 7. kiyavakam (Aufr. p. 162) should be kiyavazam (M. M. vol. ii, p. 340). I, 177, 1. yuktd, which I had adopted from MS. S 3 (prima manu), is not supported by other MSS., though P 2 reads yuttk4. Professor Aufrecht, who had retained yukt& in the text, has afterwards corrected it to yuktv4, and in this he was right. In I, 177, 2, géhi for y4hi is wrong. I, 188, 4. astrizan (Aufr. p. 171) instead of astrzzan (M. M. vol. ii, p. 395) can only be a misprint. II, 29, 6. kartad (Aufr. p. 203) instead of kartdd (M. M. vol. ii, p. 560) is wrong. II, 40, 4. Aakra (Aufr. p. 214) instead of Zakra (M. M. vol. ii, p. 614) is wrong. III, 7, 7. gué (Aufr. p. 226) instead of gu (M. M. vol. ii, p- 666) is wrong ; likewise III, 30, 10, g4A# (Aufr. p. 241) instead of g4% (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 {ndro 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 Sayama takes indra as a vocative, and likewise the Nirukta. III, 50, 2. Professor Aufrecht (p. 258) gives asya, both in the Samhita and Pada, without the accent on the last syllable. But all the MSS. that I know (S 1, S 2, S 3, Py, PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixiti
3III, 50, 2. Professor Aufrecht (p. 258) gives asya, both in the Samhita and Pada, without the accent on the last syllable. But all the MSS. that I know (S 1, S 2, S 3, Py, PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixiti 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. Pp. 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 4mandan. III, 53, 18. asi (Aufr. p. 262) instead of dsi(M. M. vol. ii, P- 934) is wrong, because hi requires that the accent should remain on asi. S 1,S 2,S 3, P 1, P 2 have asi. IV, 4, 7. sva 4yushe (Aufr. p. 279) instead of svd 4yushi (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 4yushi. IV, 5, 7- drupitam, in the Pada, (Aufr. p. 280) instead of 4rupitam (M. M. vol. iii, p. 45) is right, as had been shown in the Pratiskhya, Sdtra 179, though by a misprint the long 4 of the Samhita had been put in the place of the short a of the Pada. IV, 5, 9. read gauk (M. M. vol. iii, p. 46) instead of gdh (Aufr. p. 281). IV, 15, 2. y&ti, with the accent on the first syllable, is supported by all MSS. against yati (Aufr. p. 287). The same applies to yati in IV, 29, 2, and to varante in IV, 31, 9- IV, 18, 11. ami, without any accent (Aufr. p. 293), instead of ami (M. M. vol. iii, p. 105) is wrong, because amf is never unaccented. IV, 21, 9. no, without an accent (Auf. p. 296), instead of no (M. M. vol. iii, p. 120) is wrong. IV, 26, 3. atithigvam (Aufr. p. 300) instead of atithigvam (M. M. vol. iii, p. 140) and VI, 47, 22, atithigvasya (Aufr. Pp. 437) instead of atithigvasya (M. M. vol. iii, p. 776) are wrong, for atithigva never occurs again except with the accent on the last syllable) The MSS. do not vary. Nor do they vary in the accentuation of kutsa: hence kutsdm (Aufr. p. 300) should be kutsam (M. M. vol. iii. p. 139). xiv VEDIC HYMNS. IV, 36, 6. Professor Aufrecht (p. 309) has altered the accent of &vishu% into Avishiz, but the MSS. are unanimous in favour of 4vishuh (M. M. vol. iii, p. 181). Again in IV, 41, 9, the MSS. support the accentuation of 4gman (M. M. vol. iii, p. 200), while Professor Aufrecht (p. 313) has altered it to agman. IV, 42, 9. adasat, being preceded by hi, ought to have the accent; (Aufrecht, p. 314, has addsat without the accent.) For the same reason, V, 29, 3, dvindat (M. M. vol. iii, p. 342) ought not to have been altered to avindat (Auf. p. 344). IV, 50, 4. vyéman is a misprint for vyoman.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.