Note 3. Híranyasiprâh. Siprâ, in the dual sipre, is intended for the jaws, the upper and lower jaws, as in RV. I, 101, 10. ví syasva sípre, open the jaws. See Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, p. 249, note. RV. III, 32, I; V, 36, 2, sipre and hánû; VIII, 76, 10); X, 96, 9. sípre hárinî dávidhvatah; X, 105, 5. síprâbhyâm siprínîvân. In the plural, however, siprâh, V, 54, 11 (síprâh sîrshásu vítatâh hiranyáyîh), VIII, 7, 25, is intended for something worn on the head, made of gold or gold threads. As we speak of the ears of a cap, that is, lappets which protect the ears, or of the cheeks of a machine, so in this case the jaws seem to have been intended for what protects the jaws, and not necessarily for the real jaw-bones of an animal; used as an helmet, and afterwards imitated in any kind of metal. As to siprin it may mean helmeted or possessed of jaws. To be possessed of jaws is no peculiar distinction, yet in several of the passages where siprin occurs, there is a clear reference to eating and drinking; see VI, 44, 14; VIII, 2, 28; 17, 4; 32, 24; 33, 7; 92, 4; see also sípravân in VI, 17, 2. It is possible therefore that like susipra, siprin also was used in the sense of possessed of jaw-bones, i. e. of strong jaw-bones. Even such epithets as híranya-sipra, hári-sipra, híri-sipra may mean possessed of golden, possibly of strong jaws. (M. M., Biographies of Words, p. 263, note.) Roth takes hárisipra as yellow-jawed, hírisipra as golden-cheeked, or with golden helmet, hiranyasipra, with golden

helmet. A decision between golden-jawed or golden-helmeted is difficult, yet golden-jawed is applicable in all cases.

In our passage we must be guided by dávidhvatah, which together with sípra occurs again X, 96, 9. sípre vâ´gâya hárini dávidhvatah, shaking the golden jaws, and it seems best to translate: O ye golden-jawed Maruts, shaking (your jaws), you go to feed.

Note 4. If we retain the accent in prikshám, we shall have to take it as an adverb, from prikshá, quick, vigorous, like the German snël. This view is supported by Pischel, Ved. Stud. I, 96. If, however, we could change the accent into príksham, we might defend Sâyana's interpretation. We should have to take príksham as the accusative of priksh, corresponding to the dative prikshé in the next verse. Priksh is used together with subh, ish, ûrg (VI, 62, 4), and as we have subham yâ, we might take príksham yâ in the sense of going for food, in search of food. But it is better to take prikshám as an adverb. In the next verse prikshé is really a kind of infinitive, governing bhûvanâ.

Note 5. Tradition explains the Prishatîs as spotted deer, but prishadasva, as an epithet of the Maruts, need not mean having Prishatîs for their horses, but having spotted horses. See Bergaigne, Rel. Véd. II, p. 378, note.

Verse 4.