The History of Indian Literature c8.327

c8.327

I now turn to the *Bráhmaṇa* of the White Yajus, the *Śatapatha-Bráhmaṇa*, which, from its compass and contents, undoubtedly occupies the most significant and important position of all the Bráhmaṇas. First, extent,—this is sufficiently denoted by its very name, which describes it as consisting of 100 *pathas* (paths), or sections. The earliest known occurrence of this name is in the ninth *várttika* to Páṇ. iv. 2. 60, and in the *gaṇa* to Páṇ. v. 3. 100, both authorities of very doubtful¹ antiquity. The same remark applies to the *Naigeya-daivata*, where the name also appears (see Benfey's *Sámaveda*, p. 277). With the single exception of a passage in the twelfth book of the Mahá-Bhárata, to which I shall revert in the sequel, I have only met with it, besides, in the commentaries and in the colophons of the MSS. of the work itself. In the Mádhyamdina school the Śatapatha-Bráhmaṇa consists of fourteen *káṇḍas*, each of which bears a special title in the commentaries and in the colophons: these titles are usually borrowed from the contents; ii. and vii. are, however, to me inexplicable.† The fourteen *káṇḍas* are together subdivided into 100 *adhyáyas* (or 68 *prapáṭhakas*), 438 *bráhmaṇas*, and 7624 *kaṇḍikás*.¹³³ In the Káṇva recension the work consists of seventeen *káṇḍas*, the first, fifth, and fourteenth books being each divided into two parts; the first book, moreover, has here changed places with the second, and forms, consequently, the second and third. The names of the books are the same, but the division into *prapáṭhakas* is altogether unknown: the *adhyáyas* in the thirteen and a half books that have thus far been recovered‡ number 85, the *bráhmaṇas* 360, the *kaṇḍikás* 4965. The total for the whole work amounts, according to a list accompanying one of the manuscripts, to 104 *adhyáyas*, 446 *bráhmaṇas*, 5866 *kaṇḍikás*. If from this the recension of the Káṇva school seems considerably shorter than that of the Mádhyamdinas, it is so only in appearance; the disparity is probably rather to be explained by the greater length of the *kaṇḍikás* in the former. Omissions, it is true, not unfrequently occur. For the rest, I have no means of ascertaining with perfect accuracy the precise relation of the Bráhmaṇa of the Káṇva school to that of the Mádhyaṃḍiṇas; and what I have to say in the sequel will therefore relate solely to the latter, unless I expressly mention the former.