anyat or ayat (evidently accidental and unimportant variations); Ppp. has aṅjaṅ ⌊i.e. bhuvanānyaṅjaṅ⌋; arvā́ṅ̄ is not to be accepted as at all satisfactory, much less authoritative; it is no proper antithesis to pratyán̄† in 3 c, nor construable with the accusative. The translation, for a venture, implies bhúvanā nyañján, evolving a sense for nyañján out of nyàkta 'inherent'; it may pass for what it is worth. All the mss., and SPP., read in a cakrā́n ⌊and so does Ppp.⌋; the comm. has cakrā ’nu vahati. The redundancy of syllables in d could be easily remedied either by omitting the superfluous sá (left out in the translation) or by reading īrte for īyate ⌊or by reading sé ”yate with double saṁdhi as Ppp. suggests⌋. Ppp. reads kāle sāiyyate. The comm. has in b amṛtaṁ tanv akṣaḥ. ⌊For the nú of d, the ms. of the comm. has in fact u.⌋ *⌊The comm. has in one place añjat, explained as añjan; and, in another, the ms. of the comm. has (as noted) añjan, which SPP. prints as añjat = prerayan!⌋
†⌊It is a curious fact that Whitney here anticipates and parries the very argument in favor of the Roth-Whitney emendation arvā́n̄ which Bloomfield later adduces, SBE. xlii. 684. W. may have written this in 1893 or thereabouts. Bl's translation appeared in 1897.⌋
3. A full vessel is set upon time; we indeed see it, being now manifoldly; it [is] in front of all these beings; it call they time in the highest firmament (vyòman).
⌊For '[is] in front of' W. interlines the alternative 'faces toward.'⌋ All the mss. ⌊save W's P.: santúḥ⌋ read at end of b santás, and SPP. retains it, without even changing its false accent; the comm. glosses it with satpuruṣās, or, in an alternative explanation, with sadrūpabrahmopāsakās. Our emendation to sántam is supported by Ppp., which gives ni santaṁ. We also emend the páçyāmas of the mss. (and SPP.) to paçy-. Ppp. combines in a to adhi kālā ”hitas, and reads in c pratyaṁ. The highly obscure 'full vessel' is thus illuminated (?) by the comm.: pūrṇaḥ sarvatra vyāptaḥ kumbhaḥ kumbhavat kumbho ’horātramāsartusaṁvatsarādirūpo ‘vacchinno janyaḥ kālaḥ.
4. He indeed together brought beings; he indeed together went about (pari-i) beings; being father, he became son of them; than him verily there is no other brilliancy that is higher (pára).
The position of sám in a and in b is so strange that we are tempted to emend both times to sán 'being';* one pada-ms. reads sán in a, but this can count for nothing. The comm's exposition omits sám in a ⌊there seems to be a gap in the ms.⌋, but duly treats it (samyak parigacchati) in b. Ppp. reads in b sa yava saṁ parīyāiḥ. ⌊With c (pitā́...putrás), cf. the note to 54. 3 a.⌋ The Anukr. takes no notice of the metrical irregularities. *⌊In that case, perhaps we might render sá evá by 'the same.'⌋
5. Time generated yonder sky, time also these earths; what is and what is to be stands out sent forth by time.
SPP. reads in a amū́m with a small minority of the authorities, and with the comm.; Ppp. also has it, ⌊combining ‘mūm⌋. For b, Ppp. gives kālāi ’māṁ pṛthivīm uta. In c, our kāléna was an emendation, for the kālé ha* of the mss. (which SPP. follows); we find the former now supported by Ppp. In d, the mss. have havís (p. havíḥ) for ha ví; the text of SPP. follows us in emending to the latter, which the comm. also gives; Ppp. reads (ca) eṣataṁ ha vi ti-. The metrical definition of the Anukr. is not to be approved. *⌊Probably a faulty assimilation to the reading of vs. 6 c.⌋
