A History of Sanskrit Literature c10.37

c10.37

In all this sacrificial literature there is no evidence of repugnance to the *Atharva*, or of exclusiveness towards it on the part of followers of the other Vedas. Such an attitude could indeed hardly be expected. For though the sphere of the Vedic sacrificial ritual was different from that of regular magical rites, it is impossible to draw a distinct line of demarcation between sacrifice and sorcery in the Vedic religion, of which witchcraft is, in fact, an essential element. The adherents of the three sacrificial Vedas would thus naturally recognise a work which was a repository of witchcraft. Thus the *Çatapatha Brāhmaṇa*, though characterising *yātu* or sorcery as devilish—doubtless because it may be dangerous to those who practise it—places *yātuvidaḥ* or sorcerers by the side of *bahvṛichas* or men skilled in Rigvedic verses. Just as the *Rigveda* contains very few hymns directly connected with the practice of sorcery, so the *Atharva* originally included only matters incidental and subsidiary to the sacrificial ritual. Thus it contains a series of formulas (vi. 47–48) which have no meaning except in connection with the three daily pressings (*savana*) of soma. We also find in it hymns (*e.g.* vi. 114) which evidently consist of formulas of expiation for faults committed at the sacrifice. We must therefore conclude that the followers of the *Atharva* to some extent knew and practised the sacrificial ceremonial before the conclusion of the present redaction of their hymns. The relation of the *Atharva* to the *çrauta* rites was, however, originally so slight, that it became necessary, in order to establish a direct connection with it, to add the twentieth book, which was compiled from the *Rigveda* for the purposes of the sacrificial ceremonial.