and the comparison of X, 147, 1 (see next note), where it is said ahan yat vritram ... viveh apah, seems even to confirm the traditional reading. It cannot he denied, however, that the double yat and the use of ahan without an object raises some suspicion. In I, 34, 3; 186, 4 we have samane ahan. Possibly we may read, tat tu te damsah ahan samane, 'this wonderful deed of thine has been accomplished on one and the same day (with that mentioned in verse 7).' I am fully aware of the uncertainty of such guesses. The removal of yat has already been proposed by Bollensen (Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morg. Gesellschaft, XXII, 592).

Note [1:69:8:2]2. Here we may correct the text with greater certainty than in the first hemistich, or to speak more accurately, we shall have to correct not the traditional text itself, but that ancient grammatical commentary on the text which has been preserved to us in the Padapatha. The words viverapamsi of the Samhitapatha are written in the Padapatha viveh rapamsi. Now we read IV, 19, 10. apamsi ... narya aviveshih, 'thou hast performed manly works.' In X, 147, 1 we have ahan yat vritram naryam viveh apah: here the adjective narya clearly shows that apah is a blunder for apah, and we must translate, 'when thou hast killed Vritra and performed thy manly work.' This passage shows that in X, 76, 3 also viveh apah should be corrected (v. apah). Thus we have three passages in which aviveshih or viveh has the object apah, apamsi, and we may infer with full certainty that in our passage viverapamsi does not correspond to a Padapatha reading viveh rapamsi but viveh apamsi. The same may be said with regard to VI, 31, 3 (mushayah kakram aviveh rapamsi; Samh. avive rapamsi).

Verse 9.

Note [1:69:9:1]1. Comp. above, verse 1.

Verse 10.

Note [1:69:10:1]1. Comp. above, 66, 10.