The History of Indian Literature c8.348

c8.348

The thirteenth *kánḍa* repeatedly mentions *purusha Nárayana*. Here also Kuvera Vaiśravaṇa, king of the Rakshasas, is named for the first time. So, too, we find here the first allusion to the *súktas* of the Ṛik, the *anuvákas*[^asterisk] of the Yajus, the *daśats* of the Sáman, and the *parvans* of the Atharváṇas and Aṅgirasas, which division, however, does not appear in the extant text of the Atharvan. A division into *parvans* is also mentioned in connection with the Sarpavidyá and the Devajanavidyá, so that by these names at all events distinct works must be understood. Of Itihása and Puráṇa nothing but the name is given; they are not spoken of as divided into *parvans*, a clear proof that even at that time they were merely understood as isolated stories and legends, and not as works of any extent.¹³⁸—While in the first nine books the statement that a subject has been fully treated of already is expressed by *tasyokto bandhuḥ* [or, *so 'sáv eva bandhuḥ*, and the like], the same is expressed here by *tasyoktam bráhmaṇam*.—The use in v. 1. 18 of the words *ekavachana* and *bahuvachana* exactly corresponds to their later grammatical signification.—This *káṇḍa* is, however, very specially distinguished by the number of *gáthás*, strophes of historical purport, which it quotes at the close of the account of the horse sacrifice, and in which are given the names of kings who celebrated it in earlier times. Only one of these *gáthás* appears in the Ṛik-Saṃhitá (*maṇḍ.* iv. 42. 8); the greater number of them recur in the last book of the Aitareya-Bráhmaṇa, and in the Mahá-Bhárata, xii. 910, ff., in both places with many variations.dagger The question here arises whether we have to regard these *gáthás* as fragments of more lengthy hymns, or if they must be looked upon merely as separate memorial verses. The fact that in connection with some of these names (if we take into account