The History of Indian Literature c8.161

c8.161

I have already remarked (p. 9) upon the antiquity of the readings of the Sáma-Saṃhitá as compared with those of the Ṛik-Saṃhitá. It follows from this almost with certainty that the *ṛichas* constituting the former were borrowed from the songs of the latter at a remote period, before their formation into a Ṛik-Saṁhitá had as yet taken place; so that in the interval they suffered a good deal of wearing down in the mouth of the people, which was avoided in the case of the *ṛichas* applied as *sámans*, and so protected by being used in worship. The fact has also already been stated that no verses have been received into the Sáma-Saṁhitá from those songs of the Ṛik-Saṁhitá which must be considered as the most modern. Thus we find no *sámans* borrowed from the Purusha-Súkta, in the ordinary recensions at least, for the school of the Naigeyas has, in fact, incorporated the first five verses of it into the seventh *prapáṭhaka* of the first part—a section which is peculiar to this school. The Sáma-Saṁhitá, being a purely derivative production, gives us no clue towards the determination of its date. It has come down to us in two recensions, on the whole differing but little from each other, one of which belongs to the school of the Ráṇáyaníyas, the other to that of the Kauthumas. Of this latter the school of the Negas, or Naigeyas, alluded to above, is a subdivision, of which two Anukramaṇís at least, one of the deities and one of the Rishis of the several verses, have been preserved to us.⁶⁰ Not one of these three names has as yet been traced in Vedic literature; it is only in the Sútras of the Sámaveda itself that the first and second at least are mentioned, but even here the name of the Negas does not appear.—The text of the Ráṇáyaníyas was edited and translated, with strict reference to Sáyaṇa's commentary, by the missionary Stevenson in 1842; since 1848 we have been in possession of another edition, furnished with a complete glossary and much additional material, together with translation, which we owe to Professor Benfey, of Göttingen.⁶¹