This passage is clearly one of great antiquity, for it still recognizes +Dyaús+, the father, as the supreme god, Earth, the mother, by his side, and Agni, fire, as the brother, not of Heaven and Earth, but of man, because living with men on the hearth of their houses. +Vasu+, as a general name of the bright gods, like +deva+ in other hymns, corresponds, I believe, to the Greek adjective ἐΰς. The genitive plural ἐάων is likewise derived from ἐΰς or +vásus+, by Benfey (l.c. p. 57), and +dâtấ vásûnâm+ (Rv. VIII. 51, 5) comes certainly very near to δοτὴρ ἐάων. The only difficulty would be the ā instead of the η, as in ἐῆος, the gen. sing. of ἐΰς in Homer, a difficulty which might be removed by tracing the gen. plur. ἐάων back to a fem. ἐά, corresponding to a Sk. +vasavî+ or +vasavyâ+. As to μέλδετε, it is phonetically the nearest approach to +mṛlata+, _i.e._, *+mardata+, though in Greek it means “make mild” rather than “be mild.” Mild and _mollis_ come from the same root. What gives to this passage its special value is, that in all other passages when +dyaus+ occurs as a vocative and as bisyllabic, it appears simply with the _udâtta_, thus showing at how early a time even the Hindus forgot the meaning of the circumflex on _dyaû́s_, and its legitimate appearance in that place. Thus in Rv. VIII. 100, 12, we read,-- “Sákhe Vishṇo vitarám ví kramasva, Dyaúḥ dehí lokám vájrâya viskábhe Hánâva vṛtrám riṇácâva síndhûn Índrasya yantu prasavé vísṛshṭâḥ.” “Friend Vishṇu, stride further, Dyaus give room for the lightning to leap, Let us both kill Vṛtra and free the rivers, Let them go, sent forth at the command of Indra.” Here, I have little doubt, the ancient Rishis pronounced +Dyaû́s+, but the later poets, and the still later +Âcâryas+ were satisfied with the acute, and with the acute the word is written here in all the MSS. I know. NOTE C. ARYAN WORDS OCCURRING IN ZEND, BUT NOT IN SANSKRIT. It has been objected that the three instances which I had quoted of Zend words, not occurring in Sanskrit, but preserved in one or the other of the Indo-European languages, were not sufficient to establish the fact which I wished to establish, particularly as one of them, +kehrp+, existed in Sanskrit, or, at least, in Vedic Sanskrit, as +kṛp+. I admit that I ought to have mentioned the Vedic +kṛp+, rather than the later +kalpa+; but I doubt whether the conclusions which I wished to draw would have been at all affected by this. For what I remarked with regard to +kalpa+, applies with equal force to +kṛp+; it does not in Sanskrit mean body or flesh, like +kehrp+, and _corpus_, but simply form. But even if +kehrp+ were not a case in point, nothing would have been easier than to replace it by other words, if at the time of printing my lecture I had had my collectanea at hand. I now subjoin a more complete list of words, present in Zend, absent in Sanskrit, but preserved in Greek, Latin, or German.