« السابقةمتابعة »
be considered to hear evidence to its (of the division's) authority, viz. the frequent introductions of more or less long episodes between the Anuvákas or Mandalas. We are justified in marking these episodes, which generally are without accents, as additions, by the circumstance, that they are not found in the Anukramaniká and Padapátha. Nor are they in the division made according to Ashtakas; that is to say, although occurring in the MSS. following this division, they are not taken heed of in the enumeration of Vargas and Adhyayas, which is made according to a certain numerical arrangement, Agreeably to these authorities Sáyana also omits them. That these additions, however, are not a new creation of the copyists, is evident from the fact, that the Nirukta already knows some of them, and in the very same places, where they now occur in our copies of the Véda.— I quote the more examples such as these, as this kind of critical examination of the text is undoubtedly the only one which we can make use of, with reference to the Véda; for in the whole Sanhitá of the Rigvéda I have not met with a single passage, which, when compared with other MSS. or such books as the Nirukta, the Aitaréya Bráhmana, the Sútras of Aswaláyana, which are full of quotations from the Véda, offer one single difference-a certainty of the text which is to be attributed to the early examination and authentication of the Véda. All variations, it appears, must be looked for previously to the recording of the hymns by writing and to the treatment of the same in the schools. All these differences are now limited only to the various readings of the text in the several collections of hymns.
The two most careful copies of the Sanhitás which I examined, viz. Nos. 199 and 200 of the Dévanágari MSS. in the Royal Library at Paris, and Nos. 129–132 of the E. J. H. (Cod. Colebr.) give between the third and fourth chapters of the 9th book (132 with the special title of Súkta) 20 verses, addressed to the Pávamányas (the hymns of the Soma-purification) themselves, and for this reason they must be considered of later origin. This section is wanting in the Anukramaniká and in the text of Padas, although Yáska quotes the third Rig (Nir. V. 6.)
At the close of the second Mandala (ascribed to Gritsamada) the two MSS. alluded to, give five verses (without accents in either, while the preceding and subsequent portions have accents) which bear a like
ness to some of the Atharva hymns, and are evidently added to the two preceding hymns on account of the identity of the subject. They are neither in the Padapátha and Anak ramaniká nor with Sáyana. I quote them here to furnish an example of this later formal kind of poetry. 1.-bhadran vada dakshiņato, bhadram uttarato vada
bhadran purastán no vada, bhadran paschát kapingala || 2.-bhadran vada putrair bhadran vada griheshu cha!
bhadran asmákan vada bhadran no abhayan vada | 3.—bhadran adhastán no vada bhadram uparishtán no vada i
bhadran bhadran na ávada bhadran na: sarvato vada 11 4.-asapatnan purastán na: sivan dakshiņatas kridhi |
abhayan satatan paschád bhadram uttarato grihéli 5.-yauvanáni mahayasi jigyushám iva dundubhi ::
sakuntaka pradakshiņan satapatrábhi no vada i Yáska cites the first Rig of this Súkta (Nir. IX. 5), and expressly ascribes it to Gțitsamada ; he has, however, the various reading Kapinjála. We observe, that what has been said about the absemet of various readings, does by no means apply to these additions ; to which the following quotation bears a further evidence.* Mand. VII. anuv. 6. at the conclusion of the hymn above alluded to, which is addressed to the frogs, we find a verse not enumerated in the Anukramaniká, and also omitted in the Padapátha and in Sáyana, which differs even in metre from the hymn to which it is added. In most of the MSS. it runs thus :
upaplavada, mandúki, varsham ávada táduri
madhyé hradasya plavaswa vigrihya satura : pada : I have compared for this passage seven MSS., viz. those of Paris, Nos. 131,2135, 1691, and No. 2379, of the E. I. H, and two MSS. from Oxford (without numbers.) With the exception of No. 2379, E. J. H., all of them give this verse. No. 1,621, E. I. H., and one of the Oxford MSS. mark it as Parisishtam (omitted) which is the common way of introducing an interpolation. It is ascribed by Yáska to Vasishta, and closely follows the first Rig of that hymn, to which it is also added in the Nirukta. The three MSS. of the Nirukta, compared.
* This passage, however, is only met with at the end of a Súkta, not of a Anuváka.
+ Others read : upaplavata, upapravada, mandúká, plavasya, paras. The more exact examination of this passage shall be made by me in the Nirutka.
by me, offer the same variations. Now the identical verse occurs in a passage of the Atharvana Sanhita (IV. 15,1-4) in the same manner closely following the Rig, which is the commencement of Mand. VI. 6, 14. (according to the Atharva, MSS. Nos. 1,137 and 682, E. J. H., as above, save upapravada.) It has therefore almost the appearance, as if Yáska had at the same time referred to either Véda, to the Atharva for the similarity of the connexion, and to the Rig for mentioning Vasishta as author, and it is very probable, that the verse has found its way into the Rig, and into that very hymn in consequence of having been mixed up with fragments of the same (hymn) in the Atharvana Sanhita. That in general a great number of such interpolations owes its origin to the Atharva, has been always my opinion, which we shall have the means of proving, after we know this Véda more exactly, although the examination of the same, in want of all Indian aids, requires an editor extensively read in Védic literature.*
Of a very different kind are additions, which occur only in one or the other of the MSS., and generally present all the colours of later poetry. Thus gives the Paris MS. a long hymı, addressed to Sri. The same MS. and No. 13 E. J. II., present at the end of Anuv. 3 of the 7th book an interpolation, bearing evidence to the worship of serpents.t
An edition of the Riksanhita cannot of course reject such of these passages as are found in agreement with each other in the greater number of MSS., because they are undoubtedly interesting to us, and, as has been proved before, must have been introduced in a comparatively remote period. On the other hand, the additions that occur only in one or the other MS. and are stamped with the decisive character of a later time, should at least not be taken into the text. The result which we arrive at relative to the history of the Vedic texts, from such scattered remarks as we have made, is perfectly consonant to the conclusion we derive from the Prátisákhya Sútras. It is evident,
* To be complete, I give another example. The Brihati, quoted in the Nirukta 1X. 29, á rátri párthivan etc. is interpolated at the end of Riksanh, M. X. 10, 15 (and does not even occur in No. 132 E, J, H.)
+ I found the same passage also in a Paris MS. of the title of Mantra Sanhitá, chiefly giving parrallel passages from the Rig. (Erl. 94, 6) but am unfortunately unable to state, whether it follows the same hymn, to which it succeeds in the Rig, as I was at that time not aware, of the presence of this section in the Rig.
that these texts at an ancient time were already perfectly authenticated, arranged and divided. None dared to alter them ; additions were ventured at only between the divisions. The Anukramaniká, perhaps from time immemorial, protected the original text from coalescing with the additions of a later period. Although I am not as yet able to prove that Yáska knew this index to the Véda, yet I have not found any evidence to the contrary, and I do not hesitate to consider it more ancient than the Nirukta.
It has been before incidentally mentioned, that the Ashtaka division goes along with the Anukramaniká. As far as I know, they differ in a single instance only,—viz. the fourth Adhyaya of the 6th Ashtaka, as it now is found in the MSS., gives 54 Vargas, although it should according to the rule have only 30 to 35. IIere then must be something superfluous, which does not originally belong to the Ashtaka division. Which part is superadded, we may perceive for instance from Sáyana's commentary, which agreeably to the other division, closes the 6th Anuváka with the 15th Varga, and commences the 7th with the 32 (of the MSS., according to him the 14th.) The Vargas 14 to 31 (of the MSS.) do therefore not originally belong to the Ashtaka division. The Anukramaniká, on the other hand, enumerates them and gives also the names of their authors. They accordingly appear to have been included in the Mandala-division. To explain this deviation, it might be either supposed, that the enumeration of these 18 Vargas in the Anukramaniká is spurious, which would be supported by the omission of the whole passage in the commentary of Shadgurusishya to the Anukramaniká (according to two MSS. 1832 or 2396, E. J. H.) or it might be supposed, that at a later period these 18 Vargas were considered an independent section, consonant to itself, which might be separated from the collection of the hymns of the Rig. To this view refers the circumstance, that this passage, for instance in MS. 131, E. J. H., has the separate title Válakhilyam, (and it concludes with Válakhylyán samáptam) and the statement of Sayana in his commentary to the Aitareya Brahmana VI. 28 (where also, c. 24, a fabulous derivation of the word is given) Válakhilyákhyair munibhir drishtá “abhi praityádiké 'shtake sthitá richo Válakhilyábhidhá : I ta éva válakhilyákhyé granthé samámnátá : 1 tá : sarvá Maitravaruna : sansét” (MS. 1836 E. J. C.”)
“The verses, composed by the sages Válakhilya, which occur in the 8 hymns commencing with abhi pra, are called Válakhilya. They are recorded in the book, called Válakhilyam. To recite all such hymns is the duty of the Maitrávaruna" (a certain priest.)
By this statement of Sáyana some clue may perhaps be given, how the Rik-Sanhitá can include some greater or lesser portions, which, having an independent existence and being already arranged in a certain succession, may among certain tribes have had an authority at the performance of some peculiar sacrificial ceremonies. Even the passage
of the Aitareya Bráhmana just mentioned notices a peculiar application of the Válakhilya in the sacrifice.
2. The reading of the Véda in the School.
I now give an extract from the 15th Pațala of the first Prátisakhya (according to Dev. 203 Royal Libr. at Paris and 28 of the E. J. H.) This chapter treats on the Páráyaņa, or reading of the Véda, and we learn from it, how the mode of recital, prescribed in the same, is exactly the same oral proceeding, which is performed in writing within the Pághas or modes of writing we shall further on more closely discuss.
When the teacher has seated himself towards the East, the North and North-East, and has received the salutation from this disciples, he replies to them by an Om of 3 to 6 Mátrás, and then commences to recite the Véda. Two or more words having been recited by him, they are repeated by the disciple, sitting to his right, and afterwards by the others in succession. A Prasna thus completed is also repeated by all of them. Lastly the passage of the text is to be repeated in such a manner, that, as in the Padapátha, certain compounds are separated, and accompanied with the particles cha, gha, hi, vá, and under certain conditions with iti, just as is the case with prepositions.
A prasna, it is said, is a tricha (three verses) in the metre pankti a třicha or dwricha (two verses) in longer metres two and two verses. If a Súkta (hymn) is limited to one verse (of which the only instance is Asht. I. h. 99) it forms a Prasna.
Yé (viz. prasná :) shashtir adhyáyé upádhiká va. tions (or small sections) the lesson contains 60 or more.” (vide supr.)
3. The following fragments, which are moreover remarkable for the geographical names they contain, may be given as examples of
“Of such ques