[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Literature, language and dating](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature) › [The History of Indian Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878) › c8.7 # The History of Indian Literature c8.7 The History of Indian Literature c8.7 - **Language:** English ### [c8.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.7) will come next under our consideration, and which, providing as they do for a practical want, became necessary immediately upon the institution of a worship with a fixed ritual. For the Saṃhitá of the Sáman, and both the Saṃhitás of the Yajus, consist only of such \*ṛichas\* (verses) and sacrificial formulas as had to be recited at the ceremonies of the Soma offering and other sacrifices, and in the same order in which they were practically used; at least, we know for certain, that this is the case in the Yajus. The Saṃhitá of the Sáman contains nothing but verses (\*ṛichas\*); those of the Yajus, sentences in prose also. The former, the \*ṛichas\*, all recur, with a few exceptions, in the Ṛik-Saṃhitá, so that the Sáma-Saṃhitá is nothing more than an extract from the songs of the latter, of the verses applied to the Soma offering. Now the \*ṛichas\* found in the Sáma-Saṃhitá and Yajuḥ-Saṃhitá appear in part in a very altered form, deviating considerably from the text of the Ṛik, the Ṛik-Saṃhitá. Of this a triple explanation is possible. First, these readings may be earlier and more original than those of the Ṛik, liturgical use having protected them from alteration, while the simple song, not being immediately connected with the sacred rite, was less scrupulously preserved. Or, secondly, they may be later than those of the Ṛik, and may have arisen from the necessity of precisely adapting the text to the meaning attributed to the verse in its application to the ceremony. Or, lastly, they may be of equal authority with those of the Ṛik, the discrepancies being merely occasioned by the variety of districts and families in which they were used, the text being most authentic in the district and family in which it originated, and less so in those to which it subsequently passed. All three methods of explanation are alike correct, and in each particular case they must all be kept in view. But if we look more closely at the relation of these verses, it may be stated thus: The \*ṛichas\* occurring in the Sáma-Saṃhitá generally stamp themselves as older and more original by the greater antiquity of their grammatical forms; those in the two Saṃhitás of the Yajus, on the contrary, generally give the impression of having undergone a secondary alteration. Instances which come under the third method of explanation are found in equal numbers, both in the Sáma-Saṃhitá and the Yajuḥ-Saṃhitá. Altogether, too much stress cannot be laid on this point, namely, that the alterations which the songs and hymns underwent in the popular mouth during their oral transmission, must in any case be regarded as very considerable; since preservation by means of writing is not to be thought of for this period. Indeed we can hardly admit it for the time of the Bráhmaṇas either, otherwise it would be difficult to account for the numerous deviations of the various schools with regard to the text of these works also, as well as for the great number of different schools (Śákhás) generally. - [Previous: c8.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.6) - [Next: c8.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.8) - [Up: c8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.7) · Pramāṇa