But whatever we may think on that point, it seems perfectly clear that the different names by which the Dawn is here addressed, Ushas, Ahanâ, Dyotanâ, Dakshi_n_â, and Sûn_ri_tâ, were understood as names of the Dawn. But will it be believed, that when the Dawn is addressed in the very first verse by the name of Dakshi_n_â, when her chariot is mentioned, and her stepping forth out of darkness to come to the morning-prayer of the people, Mr. Bergaigne, always on the look-out for priest-craft and ritual, sees in Dakshi_n_â, not the Dawn, but _le salaire du sacrifice_? He thinks it not impossible that _le salaire du sacrifice_ might have been the name of the Dawn, _considérée comme le don céleste accordé pour récompense à l’homme pieux_. But he declines even this small concession, and, if I understand him rightly, he actually takes Dakshi_n_â in the first and fifth verses of our hymn as the salary of the priests. Now it is quite true that Dakshi_n_â has this meaning of salary or gift due to the priest who performs that sacrifice, but that meaning is clearly impossible here. Our hymn contains several unusual names of the Dawn, such as Ahanâ, Dyotanâ, Sûn_ri_tâ, all ἅπαξ λεγόμενα, as names of the Dawn, then why not Dakshi_n_â? Dakshi_n_â means right, _dexter_, evidently from Daksha, strength, the right hand being the strong or clever hand. It then means southern. It also means the cow, the strong cow which has calves and gives milk (Dakshi_n_â gâva_h_, Lâ_t_y. VIII, 5), and as such a cow was the most primitive payment (_fee_ and _pecu_), it may well have become the regular name for the fee due to the priest. She is celebrated as such in one of the Vedic hymns, X, 107. But however prominent a place may have been assigned to this Dakshi_n_â, the salary of priests, how could the Dawn have been called the salary? We can hardly explain why even that salary was called Dakshi_n_â, unless we suppose that it was meant for the right hand, or _la bonne main_, and in that case Dakshi_n_â, Dawn, might have been meant for the liberal goddess. But whatever the evolution of the meaning of Dakshi_n_â may have been[32], when she was invoked as Dakshi_n_â, she could not have been invoked as Salary. I am glad to see that even M. Bergaigne has not been bold enough to translate “_Le large char du Salaire a été attelé_,” but “_Le large char de la Dakshi_n_â_.” If Dakshi_n_â were really in that sense an ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, surely it is not the only ἅπαξ λεγόμενον in the scanty survivals of Vedic poetry. When we read that Dakshi_n_â was the daughter of Dyaus and the mother of Agni (Rig-Veda III, 58, 1), we need no more to feel convinced that she was meant for the Dawn. Besides, who is the Putro Dakshi_n_âya_h_, the son of Dakshi_n_â, if not Agni, the same who brings Dyotani, Rig-Veda III, 58, 1? Another name of the Dawn is Dyotanâ, and who can doubt that it meant the brilliant, i.e. the Dawn. More difficult are the other names Ahanâ and Sûn_ri_tâ.