Page:Atharva-Veda samhita.djvu/143

Rh the hymn-numbers, without going into the detail of the difference of verse-numberings, which latter, however, are not seriously confusing.

⌊Since the two editions differ, the question arises, Which is right? The fourth paragraph of p. 611 (which see) leaves it undecided, but states the real point at issue plainly. I now believe that the methods of both editions are at fault and would suggest a better method. To make the matter clear, I take as an example the paryāya-sūkta xi. 3, which consists of a group of three paryāyas.

The four sets of numbers in the first column relate to the four text-divisions: the first set (xi.) to the book; the second (3) to the paryāya-sūkta or group of paryāyas; the third (1, 2, 3) to the individual paryāya; of that group; and the fourth ($1-31$) to the verses of the paryāyas.⌋

⌊In the Berlin text, on the one hand, we must admit that each of the three component paryāyas of xi. 3 is duly indicated as such by typographical separation and that the paryāya-numbers (1 and 2 and 3) are duly given in parenthesis. That text, however, practically ignores the paryāyas, at least for the purposes of citation, by numbering the verses of all three continuously (as verses 1-56) from the beginning of paryāya 1 to the end of 3. Thus only the group of paryāyas is recognized; and it is numbered as if coördinate with the artha-sūktas of the book.⌋

⌊In the Bombay text, on the other hand, each paryāya is numbered as if coordinate with an artha-sūkta, and the verses are numbered (of course, in this case) beginning anew with 1 for each paryāya. This method