Vedic Hymns, Part I — SBE Vol. 32 (trans. F. Max Müller, 1891)

Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.

1IV, 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. V,15,5- Professor Aufrecht (p. 338) writes dirghdm instead of dégham (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 ddégham, 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. V, 34,4. prayato (Aufr. p. 351) instead of prdyata (M. M. vol. iii, p. 371) is wrong. V, 42, 9. visarmazam (Aufr. p. 358) instead of visarmdzam (M. M. vol. iii, p. 402) is wrong. V, 44, 4. parvané (Aufr. p. 360) instead of. pravané (M. M. vol. iii, p. 415) is wrong. V, 83, 4. vanti (Aufr. p. 389) instead of vdnti (M. M. vol. iii, p. 554) is supported by no MSS. V, 85, 6. Asizkantiz (Aufr. p. 391) instead of Asi#kantiz (M. M. vol. iii, p. 560) is not supported either by MSS. or by grammar, as si#k belongs to the Tud-class. On the same grounds ishayantaZ, VI, 16, 27 (M. M. vol. iii, p. 638), ought not to have been changed to ishaydntak (Aufr. p. 408), nor VI, 24, 7, avakarsdyanti (M. M. vol. iii, p. 687) . into avakarsayanti (Aufr. p. 418). VI, 46, 10, read girvamas (M. M. vol. iii, p. 763) instead of girvanas (Aufr. p. 435). VI, 60, 10. kvioti (Aufr. p. 450) instead of krznéti (M. M. vol. iii, p. 839) is wrong. VII, 40, 4. aryamd pak (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 35), in the Pada, instead of aryamé apad (M. M. vol. iv, p. 81) is wrong. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixv VII, 51, 1. Adityandm (Auf. vol. ii, p. 40) instead of Aditya4n4m (M. M. vol. iv, p. 103) is wrong. VII, 64,2. idm (Auf. vol. ii, p. 50) instead of {44m (M.M. vol. iv, p. 146) is wrong. In the same verse gop44 in the Pada should be changed in my edition to gopa. VII, 66, 5. yd (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 51) instead of yé (M. M. vol. iv, p. 151) is indeed supported by S 3, but evidently untenable on account of atip{prati.

2vol. ii, p. 50) instead of {44m (M.M. vol. iv, p. 146) is wrong. In the same verse gop44 in the Pada should be changed in my edition to gopa. VII, 66, 5. yd (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 51) instead of yé (M. M. vol. iv, p. 151) is indeed supported by S 3, but evidently untenable on account of atip{prati. VII, 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 fi, although Professor Bollensen prefers the dental n; (Zeitschrift der D.M. G., vol. xxii, p. 599.) The fact is that Vedic MSS. use the Anusvara 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 Devanagari, 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, asrégran has the dot; i.e. S 1 has the dot, and n&&, dental n joined to kk; 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 Samhité dvivenam tam would leave it doubtful whether we ought to read avivenan tam or Avivenam tam; S 1 and S 3 read dvivenam tam, but S 2 has dvivenan tam; P 2 has dvi-venan tdm, and P 1 had the same originally, though a later hand changed it to avi-venam tam. In IV, 25, 3, on the contrary, S 1 and S 3 write avivenam; S 2, avivenam; P1and P a, avi-venam. What is intended is clear enough, viz. avivenan in IV, 24,6; dvi-venam in IV, 25, 3. [In the new edition 4vivenam has been left in both passages. ] VII, 73, 1. asvina (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 56) instead of asvina (M. M. vol. iv, p. 176) is wrong. On the same page, dh{shzye, VII, 72, 3, should have the accent on the first syllable. VII, 77, 1. In this verse, which has been so often dis- [32] e Ixvi. VEDIC HYMNS. cussed (see Kuhn, Beitrige, vol. iii, p. 472 ; Bohtlingk.and Roth, Dictionary, vol. ii, p. 968; Bollensen, Orient und Occident, vol. ii, p. 463), all the MSS. which I know, read kar&yai, and not either farathai nor gardyai. VIII, 2, 29. kirfzam (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 84) instead of karfzam (M. M. vol. iv, p. 308) does not rest on the authority of any MSS., nor is it supported by Sayama. VIII, 9, 9. Professor Aufrecht has altered the very important form 4kufyuvimahi (M. M. vol. iv, p. 389) to akukyavimahi (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 4éuéyuvimahi, and I see that Professor Roth accepts this form. VIII, 32, 14. 4yantaram (Auff. vol. ii, p. 129) instead of 4yantéram (M. M. vol. iv, p. 567) is wrong.

3ii, p. 98). The question is whether this was done intentionally and on the authority of any MSS. My own MSS. support the form 4éuéyuvimahi, and I see that Professor Roth accepts this form. VIII, 32, 14. 4yantaram (Auff. vol. ii, p. 129) instead of 4yantéram (M. M. vol. iv, p. 567) is wrong. VIII, 47, 15. dushvapnyam (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 151) is not so correct as dudshvapnyam (M. M. vol. iv, p. 660), or, better, dushshvdpnyam (Pratisakhya, Sdtras 255 and 364), though it is perfectly true that the MSS. write dushvapnyam. [I ought to state that all these errata have been corrected by Professor Aufrecht in his second edition.] In 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. Professor Aufrecht writes in the second edition of his Romanised text of the Rig-veda (p. iv): ‘Um den Herren, My own die diese Druckfehler in majorem gloriam mistakes. 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. In I, 161, 2, Professor Aufrecht objects to faturas krinotana. I felt doubtful about it, and in the commentary I printed faturak krizotana. In IV, 33, 5, the reading PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixvii fatus kara is sanctioned by the authority of the Pratisakhya, Sdtra 281, 4. In I, 181, 5, Aufrecht prefers mathra; Sayama, Bohtlingk and Roth, and I prefer mathné. In II, 11, 10, he has discovered that garvit was meant for girvat. Whitney still quotes garvit. In III, 9, 4, he has discovered that apsu should be =psu; but this had been already corrected. In III, 25, 2, the final a of vaha ought to be long in the Samhita. In IV, 19, 4, instead of drz/ha ni read dri/hAni. In VII, 33, 2, instead of avrinita read = vrinita. In VII, 35, 13, the Visarga in devagop4% should be deleted. In VII, 42, 2, the Anusva4ra in yumkshva should be deleted. In VIII, 2, 30, the anudattatara should be shifted from the ultimate to the penultimate, dadhiré, not dadhire. In VIII, 51, 3, avishyanta was meant for arishyantam. In VIII, 55, 5, for na read 4. The MSS. vary in both cases. In IX, 108, 7, in vanakraksha, the kra was printed as 77. Professor Aufrecht might have seen it correctly printed in the index. SAyavza read vanartksha. In X, 28, 11, Professor Aufrecht thinks that the Pada should have godhas instead of godha. I think godha is right, in spite of Professor Aufrecht’s appeal to the silence of the Pratisakhya. The fact is that godhad never occurs, while godh4 occurs in the preceding verse, and again VIII, 69, 9.

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.