[paragraph continues] (see Kuhn, Beiträge, vol. iii, p. 472; Böhtlingk and Roth, Dictionary, vol. ii, p. 968; Bollensen, Orient und Occident, vol. ii, p. 463), all the MSS. which I know, read karâ´yai, and not either karâ´thai nor garâ´yai.

VIII, 2, 29. kîrínam (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 84) instead of kârínam (M. M. vol. iv, p. 308) does not rest on the authority of any MSS., nor is it supported by Sâyana.

VIII, 9, 9. Professor Aufrecht has altered the very important form âkukyuvîmáhi (M. M. vol. iv, p. 389) to âkukyavîmáhi (vol. ii, p. 98). The question is whether this was done intentionally and on the authority of any MSS. My own MSS. support the form âkukyuvîmáhi, and I see that Professor Roth accepts this form.

VIII, 32, 14. âyántâram (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 129) instead of âyantâ´ram (M. M. vol. iv, p. 567) is wrong.

VIII, 47, 15. dushvápnyam (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 151) is not so correct as duhshvápnyam (M. M. vol. iv, p. 660), or, better, dushshvápnyam (Prâtisâkhya, Sûtras 255 and 364), though it is perfectly true that the MSS. write dushvápnyam.

[I ought to state that all these errata have been corrected by Professor Aufrecht in his second edition.]

In the ninth and tenth Mandalas I have not to defend myself, and I need not therefore give a list of the passages where I think that Professor Aufrecht's text is not supported by the best MSS. My own edition of these Mandalas will soon be published, and I need hardly say that where it differs from Professor Aufrecht's text, I am prepared to show that I had the best authorities on my side.

Professor Aufrecht writes in the second edition of his Romanised text of the Rig-veda (p. iv): 'Um den Herren, My own mistakes.die diese Druckfehler in majorem gloriam suam mit so grosser Schonung hervorgehoben haben, einen Gegendienst zu erweisen, bemerke ich einige derselben.' Dieser Gegendienst, so gut er gemeint war, ist leider nicht sehr bedeutend ausgefallen, auch nicht immer in majorem gloriam Catonis.

In I, 161, 2, Professor Aufrecht objects to katuras krinotana. I felt doubtful about it, and in the commentary I printed katurah krinotana. In IV, 33, 5, the reading

katus kara is sanctioned by the authority of the Prâtisâkhya, Sûtra 281, 4.

In I, 181, 5, Aufrecht prefers mathrâ; Sâyana, Böhtlingk and Roth, and I prefer mathnâ.

In II, II, 10, he has discovered that gûrvît was meant for gûrvât. Whitney still quotes gûrvît.

In III, 9, 4, he has discovered that apsu should be ऽpsu; but this had been already corrected.

In III, 25, 2, the final a of vaha ought to be long in the Samhitâ.

In IV, 19, 4, instead of drilhâ ni read drilhâni.

In VII, 33, 2, instead of avrinîtâ read ऽvrinîtâ.

In VII, 35, 13, the Visarga in devagopâh should be deleted.

In VII, 42, 2, the Anusvâra in yumkshvâ should be deleted.