this point I differ from Professor Roth, I think he has rightly interpreted the meaning of ánamam. Out of the four passages in which badha-snaíh occurs, it is three times joined with nam, and every time has the sense of to bend away from, to escape from. See also Sonne, in Kuhn's Zeitschrift, vol. xii. p. 348. Verse 7, note 1. See vii. 39, 6. sakshîmáhi yúgyebhih nú devaíh. Verse 7, note 2. The last words leave no doubt as to their meaning, for the phrase is one of frequent occurrence. The only difficulty is the vocative marutah, where we should expect the nominative. It is quite possible, however, that the Maruts should here address themselves, though, no doubt, it would be easy to alter the accent. As to the phrase itself, see viii. 61, 4. táthâ ít asat indra krátvân yáthân vásah. May it be so, O Indra, as thou desirest by thy mind. viii. 66, 4. vagr—ít karat índrah krátvà yáthân vásat. May Indra with the thunderbolt act as he desires in his mind. Cf. viii. 20, 17; 28, 4, &c. Verse 8, note1. Here again Indra claims everything for himself, denying that the Maruts in any way assisted him while performing his great deeds. These deeds are the killing of Vritra, who withholds the waters, i. e. the rain from the earth, and the consequent liberation of the waters so that they flow down freely for the benefit of Manu, that is, of man. When Indra says that he slew Vritra indriyéna, he evidently chooses that word with a purpose, and we must therefore translate it, not only by might, but by Indra's peculiar might. Indriyá, as derived from índra, means originally Indra-hood, then power in general, just as verethraghna in Zend means victory in general, though originally it meant the slaying of Vritra. Verse 9, note 1. Devátâ in the ordinary sense of a deity never occurs in the Rig-veda. The word, in fact, as a feminine substantive occurs but twice, and in the tenth Mandala only. But even there it does not mean deity. In x. 24, 6, devâh devátayâ means, O gods, by your godhead, i. e. by your divine power. In x. 98, 1, bríhaspate práti me devátâm ihi, I take devátâ in the same sense as devátâti, and translate, O Brihaspati, come to my sacrifice. In all other places where devátâ occurs in the Rig-veda it is a local adverb, and means among the gods. I shall only quote those passages in which Professor Roth assigns. to devátâ a different meaning: i. 55, 3. prá vîryẽna devátâ áti kekite. He is pre-eminent among the gods by his strength. i. 22, 5. sáh kéttâ devátâ padám. He knows the place among the gods. i. 100, 15. ná yásya devẩh devátâ ná mártâh ấpah kaná sávasah ántam âpúh. He, the end of whose power neither the gods among the gods, nor mortals, nor even the waters have reached. Here the translation of devátâ in the sense of 'by their godhead,' would be equally applicable, yet nothing would be gained as, in either case, devátâ is a weak repetition. vi. 4, 7. índram ná tvâ sávasâ devátâ vâyúm prinanti radhasâ nrí-tamâh. The best among men celebrate thee, O Agni, as like unto Indra in strength among the gods, as like unto Vâyu in liberality. Verse 9, note 2. The juxta-position of gấyamânah and gâtáh would seem to show that, if the latter had a past, the former had a future meaning. To us, 'No one who will be born and no one who has been born,' would certainly sound more natural. The Hindu, however, is familiar with the idea as here expressed, and in order to comprehend all beings, he speaks of those who are born and those who are being born. Thus in a Padasishta of the Pâvamânîs (ix. 67) we read: yan me garbhe vasatah pâpam ugram, Verse 9, note 3. Karishya is written in all the MSS. without a Visarga, and unless we add the Visarga on our own authority, we should have to take it as an accusative plur. neut. of a passive participle of the future, karishyám standing for kâryẩm, faciendum. It would be much easier, however, to explain this form if we added the Visarga, and read karishyah, which would then be a second person singular of a Vedic conjunctive of the future. This form occurs at least once more in the Veda : iv. 30, 23. utá nûnám yát indriyám karishyah indra paúmsyam, adyá nákih tát a minat. O Indra, let no man destroy to-day whatever manly feat thou art now going to achieve. Verse 10, note 1. As I have translated these words, they sound rather abrupt. The meaning, however, would be clear enough, viz. almighty power belongs to me, therefore I can dare and do. If this abrupt expression should offend, it may be avoided, by taking the participle dadhrishvẩn as a finite verb, and translating, Whatever I have been daring, I shall do according to my will. The Verse 11, note 1. In this verse Indra, after having declined with no uncertain sound the friendship of the Maruts, repents himself of his unkindness towards his old friends. The words of praise which they addressed to him in verse 9, in spite of the rebuff they had received from Indra, have touched his heart, and we may suppose that after this, their reconciliation was complete. words of Indra are clear enough, the only difficulty occurs in the last words, which are so idiomatic that it is impossible to render them in English. In tanvẽ tanűbhih, literally for the body by the bodies, tanû is used like the pronoun self. Both must therefore refer to the same subject. We cannot translate for myself made by yourselves,' but must take the two words together, so that they should mean, the hymn which you have made for your own sake, freely, and by your own exertions, honestly.' Verse 13, note 1. I translate api-vâtáyantah by cherishing, a meaning equally applicable to i. 128, 2, and x. 25, I. I suppose the original meaning was really to blow upon a person, to cool or refresh a person by a draught of air, which, in countries like India, was and is the office of the attendants of a prince. It would then take the meaning of honouring, worshipping or cherishing, though I confess the hymns of the Veda seem almost too early for such a courtly metaphor. Verse 14, note 1. This is a verse which, without some conjectural alterations, it seems impossible to translate. Sâyana, of course, has a translation ready for it, so has M. Langlois, but both of them offend against the simplest rules of grammar and logic. The first question is, who is meant by asmẩn (which is here used as an amphimacer), the sacrificers or the Maruts? The verb a kakré would well apply to the medha mânyásya, the hymn of Mânya, which is intended to bring the Maruts to the sacrifice, this bringing to the sacrifice being the very meaning of â kar. But then we have the vocative marutah in the next line, and even if we changed the vocative into the accusative, we should not gain much, as the Maruts could hardly call upon anybody to turn them towards the sage. If, on the contrary, we admit that asman refers to those who offer the sacrifice, then we must make a distinction, which, it is true, is not an unusual one, between those who here speak of themselves in the first person, and who provide the sacrifice, and the poet Mândârya Mânya, who was employed by them to compose or to recite this hymn. But even if we adopt this alternative, many difficulties still remain. First of all, we have to change the accent of kakré into kakre, which may seem a slight change, but is not the less objectionable when we consider that in our emendations of the Vedic hymns we must think rather of accidents that might happen in oral traditions than of the lapsus calami of later scribes. Secondly, we must suppose that the hymn of Mândârya Mânya ends with verse 13, and that the last verses were supplied by the sacrificers themselves. Possibly the dialogue only, from verse 3 to verse 12, was the work of Mânya, and the rest added at some solemn occasion. Other difficulties, however, remain. Duvasyat is taken by Sâyana as an ablative of duvasyá, worthy of dúvas, i. e. of worship, of sacrifice. Unfortunately this duvasyá does not occur again, though it would be formed quite regularly, like namasya, worthy of worship, from námas, worship. If we take duvasyất as the 3rd pers. sing. of the present in the Vedic conjunctive, we must also confess that this conjunctive does not occur again. But the verb duvasyati occurs frequently. It seems to have two meanings. It is derived from dúvas, which in the Vedic language means worship or sacrifice, just as karma, work, has assumed the special sense of sacrifice. Derived from dúvas in this sense, duvasyati means to worship. But dúvas meant originally any opus operatum. The root from which dúvas is derived, is lost in Sanskrit, but it exists in other languages. It must have been du or dú in the sense of acting, or sedulously working. It exists in Zend as du, to do, in Gothic as táujan, gataujan, Old High German zawjan, Modern German zauen (Grimm, Gram. i2. p. 1041). The Gothic tavi, opus, Old High German zouwi, Middle High German gezöuwe (Grimm, Gram. iii. p. 499), come from the same source; and it is possible, too, that the Old Norse töfrar, incantamenta, the Old High German zoupar, Middle High German zouber, both neuter, and the modern Zauber, may find their explanation in the Sanskrit dúvas. Derived from dúvas, in the sense of work, we have duvasyati in the sense of helping, providing, the German schaffen and verschaffen. In the sense of worshipping, duvasyati occurs, iii. 2, 8. duvasyáta-gâtá-vedasam. Worship Gâtavedas. v. 28, 6. a guhota duvasyáta agním. Invoke, worship Agni. Cf. iii. 13, 3; 1, 13. iii. 3, 1. agníh hí devan-duvasyáti. Agni performs the worship of the gods. Cf. vii. 82, 5. i. 167, 6. sutá-somah duvasyán. He who has poured out Soma and worships. In many passages duvasyati is joined with an instrumental: |