is easier and more natural. Ppp., too, has -cātanaṁ, which gives the emendation sufficient support.* Ppp. has for a vīraṁ madhyam avāsṛjat. The pada-mss. commit the egregious inconsistency of reading cātáyan: nāçáyat in c, d; SPP. emends in pada-text to cātáyat.* Ppp. has in d nāçayatam ivāhitā. ⌊In c of the Berlin ed., correct sárvaç to sárvāç.
*⌊Both editions print rakṣohā́mīvacā́tanaḥ, and the pada-reading is rakṣaḥ॰hā́: amīva॰cā́tanaḥ. Whitney, doubtless by oversight, neglects to say how he would emend rakṣohā́ to make a corresponding neuter of it, and the question is a very troublesome one (for details, see Noun-Inflection, p. 478 end, p. 479). The neuter form would properly be -hắ; but none such is quotable, so far as I know, unless here. May it be that we have here that very form, -hắ (neuter), concealed in the combination -hā́mīva-, and that the misunderstanding of it as -hā́ (masculine.) amīva- led to a corruption of an original -cā́tanam into -cā́tanaḥ and also of an original pada-reading cātáyat into cātáyan? If so, all would be in harmony.⌋
8. Much untruth, O king Varuṇa, doth man (pū́ruṣa) say here; from that sin (áṅhas) do thou free us, O thou of thousand-fold heroism.
The mss. vary between rā́jan and rājan, and between ánṛtam, anṛ́tam, and ánṛ́tam. The great majority accent at the end páryaṅhasaḥ, and all the pada-mss. have pári॰aṅhasaḥ. SPP. reads at the beginning bahv ī̀dám, after the manner of the Sāma-Veda; we emended to ìdám, because that is the Atharvan practice (cf. note to Prāt. iii. 65, p. 499), against which the concurrence even of all the mss. ⌊save W's I.⌋, as here, ought not to count. Ppp. reads in b puruṣaḥ.
9. In that we have said O waters, O inviolable [kine], O Varuṇa, from that sin do thou free us, O thou of thousand-fold heroism.
That is, if we have called these divinities to witness an untruth: cf. the nearly equivalent vii. 83. 2 c-e. The translation implies emendation to ághnyās; váruṇa, which can be only vocative, proves each of its predecessors such; the comm. understands all the three as vocative, and paraphrases [he] āpo yūyaṁ jānīdhve, he aghnyā yūyam mama cittaṁ jānīdhve, etc. Ppp. reads in b varuṇena yad. Our mss. read again páryaṅh- (p. pári॰aṅhasaḥ), and so apparently do SPP's, although he does not distinctly say so; ⌊his note to vs. 8 (note 2, p. 455) perhaps makes such an implication⌋.
10. Both Mitra and Varuṇa went forth after thee, O ointment; they, having gone far after thee, brought thee back for enjoyment (bhogá).
All the authorities ⌊save W's E. and one of SPP's reciters⌋, and Ppp. also, give at the end púnar ohatu; but the pada-mss. give púnaḥ; rohatu, which is a blunder, since the corresponding saṁhitā would be púnā rohatu ⌊which W's E. in fact has⌋. SPP. emends to púnar ó ”hatuḥ (p. púnaḥ: ā́: ūhatuḥ), and the translation follows this, rather than our own nearly equivalent and equally acceptable emendation to púnar ó ”hatām. ⌊Whitney here overlooks the lack of accent on the oh-: the Berlin text, the text of W's Collation Book, and his Index, under 1 ūh, all give ohatām without accent. Root 1 ūh does not appear to be quotable with a, and it would seem that SPP's emendation (root vah with a) must of need be preferred.⌋ The comm., ⌊with his text, and with SPP's reciter V., who accented púnar āhatuḥ,⌋ gives punar āhatuḥ (= punar āgantavyam ity ūcatuḥ!). ⌊We might better render bhogāya by ' for our use?⌋ Half the mss. accent with us ánu préy- in b; SPP. gives anu, with the pada-text (anu॰préyatuḥ).
