________________
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
Ixvii
katus kara is sanctioned by the authority of the Prátisakhya, Sûtra 281, 4.
In I, 181, 5, Aufrecht prefers mathra ; Sâyana, Böhtlingk and Roth, and I prefer mathna.
In II, 11, 10, he has discovered that gurvit was meant for gurvåt. Whitney still quotes gurvit.
In III, 9, 4, he has discovered that apsu should be spsu ; but this had been already corrected.
In III, 25, 2, the final a of vaha ought to be long in the Samhità.
In IV, 19, 4, instead of drilha ni read drilhani. In VII, 33, 2, instead of avrinità read -vrinita.
In VII, 35, 13, the Visarga in devagopah should be deleted.
In VII, 42, 2, the Anusvåra in yumkshvà 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 a. The MSS. vary in both cases.
In IX, 108, 7, in vanakraksha, the kra was printed as ri. Professor Aufrecht might have seen it correctly printed in the index. Sayana read vanariksha.
In X, 28, 11, Professor Aufrecht thinks that the Pada should have godhåh instead of godha. I think godhå is right, in spite of Professor Aufrecht's appeal to the silence of the Prátisåkhya. The fact is that godhah never occurs, while godhå occurs in the preceding verse, and again VIII, 69, 9.
After such a flourish of trumpets, we expected more from Professor Aufrecht; still we must learn to be grateful even for small mercies.
Having said so much in vindication of the text of the Rig-veda as published by me, and in defence of my principles of criticism which seem to me so self-evident as hardly to deserve the name of canones critici, I feel bound at the same time both to acknowledge some inaccuracies that have occurred in the index at the end of each volume, and to defend some entries in that index which have been challenged without sufficient cause.
e 2
Digitized by Google