The History of Indian Literature c10.4

c10.4

P. 32, note ²¹. On the Váshkalas somewhat more light has now been cast. In the first place, from a comparison of the *káriká* quoted in my Catal. of the Berlin Sansk. MSS., p. 314, ‘*Śákalánám samání va ity ṛichá ’ntyá ”hutir bhavet* | *Báshkalánáṃ tu tachhamyor ity ṛichá ’ntyáhutir bhavet*,’ it results that the citation in the forty-eighth Atharva-pariśishṭa (see *I. St.*, iv. 431) of the *śamyuváka* as the concluding verse of the Ṛik-Saṃhitá has reference to the Váshkala-recension of the latter. Next, it becomes evident that this recension stood in a special relation to the Śáñkháyana texts, since in the Śáñkh. Gṛih., 4. 5. 9, the same verse is cited as the concluding one of the Samhitá, and this expressly as the view of Kaushítaki. In addition to this we have the fact that the *pratíka* of the whole section to which this verse belongs, and which forms the last *khila*—*samjñána*—in the vulgate recension of the Ṛik-Samhitá, is found cited in the Śáñkháy.-Śrauta-Sútra, 3. 6. 4, but is wanting in the parallel passage, Áśval., 2, 11. And, lastly, we shall probably also have to allot to the Váshkalas the eleven hymns—ten *Áśvináni* and one *Aindrávaruṇam súktam*—which, as Rud. Meyer has recently pointed out (Rigvidhána, Praef., p. xxiv.), are cited in the Bṛihaddevatá, 3. 24, between Ṛik-Saṃh., i. 73 and 74. For, according to Meyer, their *pratíkas* prove to be identical with those given by the scholiast on Śáṅkh. Śr., 9. 20. 14, for the ‘*triśataṃ suparṇam*’ there mentioned in the text, which again is specified under this name in the Śáṅkh. Br. itself (18. 4) as part of the Áśvina-śastra. Probably, too, the other portions of text, which, as stated by Meyer (*l. c.*, p. xxv. ff.), appear in the Bṛihaddevatá as well as in the Ṛigvidhána, as belonging to the Ṛik-Saṃhitá, whereas they are found neither in the vulgate—the Śákala-Saṃhitá—itself, nor in its *khila* portions, will have to be assigned to the Váshkalas. In point of fact, the *saṃjñána khila* also, to which (see above) the concluding verse of the Váshkala-Saṃhitá belongs, is mentioned in both texts (Meyer, p. xxii.). An exact comparison of the Ṛik-verses cited in the Sáṅkháyana texts will probably throw full light upon this point.—In Bühler's letter from Kashmír (published in *I. St.*, xiv. 402 ff.) the interesting information was given that he had there discovered an excellent *bhúrja*-MS., some five to six hundred years old, of the Ṛik-Saṃhitá in the Śákala recension. This MS. is accentuated, whereas the Kashmír Vedic MSS. are not wont to be so, but the accent is denoted in a totally different manner from that customary in India, the *udátta* alone being marked by a perpendicular line, precisely as, according to Haug, is usual in one of the two schools of the Maitráyaṇí Saṃhitá, and as we ourselves do; cf. my remarks in the *Jenaer Lit. Zeit.*, 1875, p. 315. On this MS. see now the detailed report of Bühler's journey in the *Journal Bomb. Br. R. A. S.*, 1877, extra No., pp. 35, 36.