A History of Sanskrit Literature c10.4

c10.4

We know from statements of the *Çatapatha Brāhmaṇa* that the divisions of the first book of the *Sāmaveda* existed at least as early as the period when the second part of that Brāhmaṇa was composed. There is, moreover, some reason to believe that the *Sāmaveda* as a collection is older than at least the *Taittirīya* and the *Vājasaneyi* recensions of the *Yajurveda*. For the latter contain verses, used also as *Sāman* chants, in a form which shows the variations of the *Sāmaveda* in contrast with the *Rigveda*. This is all the more striking as the *Vājasaneyi* text has an undoubted tendency to adhere to the readings of the *Rigveda*. On the other hand, the view expressed by Professor Weber that numerous variants in verses of the *Sāmaveda* contain archaic forms as compared with the *Rigveda*, and were therefore borrowed at a time before the existing redaction of the *Rigveda* took place, has been shown to be untenable. The various readings of the *Sāmaveda* are really due in part to inferior tradition, and in part to arbitrary alterations made in order to adapt verses detached from their context to the ritual purpose to which they were applied.