i. 164, 17. read párena (M. M. vol. ii. p. 259) instead of paréna (Aufr. p. 149).

i. 164, 38. The first kikyúh 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 seem a small 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 étân (vol. ii. p. 293) with the accent on the first syllable. Professor Aufrecht alters this into etấn (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. yâsishta (Aufr. p. 154) instead of yâsîshta (M. M. vol. ii. p. 298) is not supported by any MSS.

i. 169, 7, instead of patayánta (Aufr. p. 158), read patayanta (M. M. vol. ii. p. 322).

i. 174, 7. kúyâvâkam (Aufr. p. 162) should be kúyavâkam (M. M. vol. ii. p. 340).

i. 177, 1. yukta, which I had adopted from MS. S. 3 (prima manu), is not supported by other MSS., though P. 2. reads yuttka. Professor Aufrecht, who had retained yukta in the text, has afterwards corrected it to yuktva, and in this he was right. In i. 177, 2, gâhi for yâhi is wrong.

i. 188, 4. astrinan (Aufr. p. 171) instead of astrinan (M. M. vol. ii. p. 395) can only be a misprint.

ii. 29, 6. kártâd (Aufr. p. 203) instead of kartad (M. M. vol. ii. p. 560) is wrong.

ii. 40, 4. kakra (Aufr. p. 214) instead of kakrá (M. M. vol. ii. p. 614) is wrong.

iii. 7, 7. guh (Aufr. p. 226) instead of gúh (M. M. vol. ii. p. 666) is wrong; likewise iii. 30, 10. gâh (Aufr. p. 241) instead of gah (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 índro 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 Sâyana takes indra as a vocative, and likewise the Nirukta.

iii. 50, 2. Professor Aufrecht (p. 258) gives asya, both in the Sanhitâ and Pada, without the accent on the last syllable. But all the MSS. that I know (S. 1, S. 2, S. 3, P. 1, 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. p. 337); while in viii. 103, 9, (Aufr. 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 ámandan.

iii. 53, 18. asi (Aufr. p. 262) instead of ási (M. M. vol. ii. P. 934) is wrong, because hí requires that the

accent should remain on ási. S. 1, S. 2, S. 3, P. 1, P. 2. have ási.

iv. 4, 7. svá ayushe (Aufr. p. 279) instead of svá ayushi (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 ayushi.

iv. 5, 7. árupitam, in the Pada, (Aufr. p. 280) instead of arupitam (M. M. vol. iii. p. 45) is right, as had been shown in the Prâtisâkhya, Sûtra 179, though by a misprint the long â of the Sanhitâ had been put in the place of the short a of the Pada.

iv. 5, 9. read gaúh (M. M. vol. iii. p. 46) instead of góh (Aufr. p. 281).

iv. 15, 2. yấti, with the accent on the first syllable, is supported by all MSS. against yâti (Aufr. p. 287). The same applies to yấti in iv. 29, 2, and to várante in iv. 31, 9.

iv. 18, 11. amî, without any accent (Aufr. p. 293), instead of ami (M. M. vol. iii. p. 105) is wrong, because amî is never unaccented.

iv. 21, 9. no, without an accent (Aufr. p. 296), instead of nó (M. M. vol. iii. p. 120) is wrong.

iv. 26, 3. átithigvam (Aufr. p. 300) instead of atithigvám (M. M. vol. iii. p. 140) and vi. 47, 22. átithigvasya (Aufr. p. 437) instead of atithigvásya (M. M. vol. iii. p. 776) are wrong, for atithigvá never occurs again except with the accent on the last syllable. The MSS. do not vary. Nor do they vary in the accentuation of kútsa: hence kutsám (Aufr. p. 300) should be kútsam (M. M. vol. iii. p. 139).

iv. 36, 6. Professor Aufrecht (p. 309) has altered the accent of avishuh into âvishúh, but the MSS. are unanimous in favour of avishuh (M. M. vol. iii. p. 181).

Again in iv. 41, 9, the MSS. support the accentuation of ágman (M. M. vol. iii. p. 200), while Professor Aufrecht (p. 313) has altered it to agman.

iv. 42, 9. ádâsat, being preceded by hí, ought to have the accent; (Aufrecht, p. 314, has adâsat without the accent.) For the same reason, v. 29, 3, ávindat (M. M. vol. iii. p. 342) ought not to have been altered to avindat (Aufr. p. 344).

iv. 50, 4. vyóman is a misprint for vyòman.

v. 15, 5. Professor Aufrecht (p. 338) writes dîrghám instead of dógham (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 dógham, 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. práyato (Aufr. p. 351) instead of práyatâ (M. M. vol. iii. p. 371) is wrong.

V. 42, 9. visármânam (Aufr. p. 358) instead of visarmanam (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. vânti (Aufr. p. 389) instead of vanti (M. M. vol. iii. p. 554) is supported by no MSS.

v. 85, 6. âsíñkantîh (Aufr. p. 391) instead of âsiñkántih (M. M. vol. iii. p. 560) is not supported

either by MSS. or by grammar, as sink belongs to the Tud-class. On the same grounds isháyantah,

vi. 16, 27 (M. M. vol. iii. p. 638), ought not to have been changed to ishayántah (Aufr. p. 408), nor vi. 24, 7, avakarsáyanti (M. M. vol. iii. p. 687) into avakársayanti (Aufr. p. 418).

vi. 46, 10. read girvanas (M. M. vol. iii. p. 763) instead of gírvanas (Aufr. p. 435).

vi. 60, 10. krinoti (Aufr. p. 450) instead of krinóti (M. M. vol. iii. p. 839) is wrong.

vii. 40, 4. aryama ấpah (Aufr. ii. p. 35), in the Pada, instead of aryama ápah (M. M. vol. iv. p. 81) is wrong.

vii. 51, 1. âdityânấm (Aufr. ii. p. 40) instead of adityanâm (M. M. vol. iv. p. 103) is wrong.

vii. 64, 2. ilẩm (Aufr. ii. p. 50) instead of ílâm (M. M. vol. iv. p. 146) is wrong. In the same verse gopâh in the Pada should be changed in my edition to gopâ.

vii. 66, 5. yó (Aufr. ii. p. 51) instead of yé (M. M. vol. iv. p. 151) is indeed supported by S. 3, but evidently untenable on account of atipíprati.

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 ñ, although Professor Bollensen prefers the dental n; (Zeitschrift der D. M. G., vol. xxii. p. 599.) The fact is that Vedic MSS. use the Anusvâra dot for final nasals before all class-letters, and leave it to us to interpret that dot according to the letter which