Six Unanalysed Verses in Sakalya's Padapatha

[Guest guest]

In his _History of Sanskrit Literature_, Macdonnell writes: "There are six

verses in the RgVeda not analysed in the Pada text, but only given there

in the Samhita form. This shows that Sakalya did not acknowledge them as

truly RgVedic, a view justified by internal evidence."

 

Unfortunately, a footnote enumerating these verses is completely garbled

in the Motilal Banarsidass edition of the book that I have. This reads:

 

vii. 59 I9 ; x. 20, I; I2I, I0, I90, I-3

 

where numeral 1 and capital I are typographically indistinguishable, and

the apparent deciphering into VII.59.19, X.20.1, I.20.10, I.90.1-3 falis

because Sukta I.20 has only 8 verses.

 

Can anyone provide the correct numbers, and also expand on the "interal

evidence" that makes them dubious?

 

Thanks!