The History of Indian Literature c8.325

c8.325

Lastly, as regards the critical relation of the *ṛichas* incorporated into the Yajus, I have to observe, that in general the two recensions of the Káṇvas and of the Mádhyamdinas always agree with each other in this particular, and that their differences refer, rather, to the Yajus-portions. One half of the Vájasaneyi-Saṃhitá consists of *ṛichas*, or verses; the other of *yajúṅshi*, *i.e.*, formulas in prose, a measured prose, too, which rises now and then to a true rhythmical swing. The greater number of these *ṛichas* recur in the Ṛik-Saṁhitá, and frequently with considerable variations, the origin and explanation of which I have already discussed in the introduction (see above, pp. 9, 10). Readings more ancient than those of the Ṛik are not found in the Yajus, or at least only once in a while, which results mainly from the fact that Ṛik and Yajus agree for the most part with each other, as opposed to the Sáman. We do, however, find that verses have undergone later alterations to adapt them to the sense of the ritual. And finally, we meet with a large number of readings which appear of equal authority with those of the Ṛik, especially in the verses which recur in those portions of the Ṛik-Saṁhitá that are to be regarded as the most modern.