The History of Indian Literature c8.235

c8.235

The Saṃhitá of the Ápastamba school consists of seven books (called *ashṭakas*!); these again are divided into 44 *praśnas*, 651 *anuvákas*, and 2198 *kaṇḍikás*, the latter being separated from one another on the principle of an equal number of syllables to each.⁹⁰ Nothing definite can be ascertained as to the extent of the Átreya recension; it is likewise divided into *káṇḍas*, *praśnas*, and *anuvákas*, the first words of which coincide mostly with those of the corresponding sections of the Ápastamba school. The Káṭhaka is quite differently divided, and consists of five parts, of which the three first are in their turn divided into forty *sthánakas*, and a multitude of small sections (also probably separated according to the number of words); while the fourth merely specifies the *ṛichas* to be sung by the Hotar, and the fifth contains the formulas belonging to the horse-sacrifice. In the colophons to the three first parts, the Charaka-Śákhá is called *Iṭhimiká*, *Madhyamiká*, and *Orimiká*, respectively: the first and last of these three appellations are still unexplained.⁹¹ The Bráhmaṇa portion in these works is extremely meagre as regards the ritual, and gives but an imperfect picture of it; it is, however, peculiarly rich in legends of a mythological character. The sacrificial formulas themselves are on the whole the same as those contained in the Saṃhitá of the White Yajus; but the order is different, although the order of the ceremonial to which they belong is pretty much the same. There are also many discrepancies with regard to the words; we may instance, in particular, the expansion of the semi-vowels *v* and *y* after a consonant into *uv* and *iy*, which is peculiar to the Ápastamba school.⁹² As to data, geographical or historical, &c. (here, of course, I can only speak of the Ápastamba school and the Káṭhaka), in consequence of the identity of matter these are essentially the same as those which meet us in the Saṃhitá of the White Yajus. (In the latter, however, they are more numerous, formulas being also found here for ceremonies which are not known in the former—the *purushamedha*, for instance.) Now these data—to which we must add some other scattered allusions[^asterisk] in the portions bearing the character of a Bráhmaṇa—carry us back, as we shall see, to the flourishing epoch of the kingdom of the Kuru-Pañchálas,⁹³ in which district we must therefore recognise the place of origin of both works. Whether this also holds good of their final redaction is another question, the answer to which, as far as the Ápastamba-Saṃhitá is concerned, naturally depends upon the amount of influence in its arrangement to be ascribed to Ápastamba, whose name it bears. The Káṭhaka, according to what has been stated above, appears to have existed as an entirely finished work even in Yáska's time, since he quotes it; the Anukramaṇí of the Átreya school, on the contrary, makes Yáska Paiṅgi⁹⁴ (as the pupil of Vaiśampáyana) the teacher of Tittiri, the latter again the instructor of Ukha, and Ukha the preceptor of Átreya.∗ This at least clearly exhibits its author's view of the priority of Yáska to the schools and redactions of the Black Yajus bearing the names of Tittiri and Átreya; although the data necessary to prove the correctness of this view are wanting. That, however, some sort of influence in the arrangement of the Saṃhitá of the Black Yajus is certainly to be attributed to Yáska, is evident further from the fact that Bhaṭṭa Bháskara Miśra, in an extant fragment of his commentary on the Ápastamba-Saṃhitá,† quotes, side by side with the views of Káśakritsna and Ekachúrṇi regarding a division of the text, the opinion of Yáska also.