The History of Indian Literature c8.93

c8.93

Of these, we have two, the *Aitareya-Bráhmaṇa* and the *Śáṅkháyana-* (or *Kaushítaki-*) *Bráhmaṇa*. They are closely connected with one another,∗ treat essentially of the same matter, not unfrequently, however, taking opposite views of the same question. It is in the distribution of their matter that they chiefly differ. In the Śáṅkháyana-Bráhmaṇa we have a perfectly arranged work, embracing on a definite plan the entire sacrificial procedure; but this does not seem to be the case in an equal degree in the Aitareya-Bráhmaṇa. The latter, moreover, appears to treat exclusively of the Soma sacrifice; whereas in the former it merely occupies the principal place. In the Śáṅkháyana-Bráhmaṇa we meet with nothing at all corresponding to the last ten *adhyáyas* of the Aitareya-Bráhmaṇa, a gap which is only filled up by the Śáṅkháyana-Sútra; and for this reason, as well as from internal evidence, it may perhaps be assumed that the *adhyáyas* in question are but a later addition to the Aitareya-Bráhmaṇa. In the extant text, the Aitareya-Bráhmaṇa contains 40 *adhyáyas* (divided into eight *pañchikás*, or pentads), while the Śāṅkhāyana-Brāhmaṇa contains 30; and it is perhaps allowable to refer to them the rule in Pāṇini v. 1. 62, which states how the name of a Brāhmaṇa is to be formed if it contain 30 or 40 *adhyāyas*,—a view which would afford external warrant also of the fact of their existence in this form in Pāṇini's time, at all events. Geographical or similar data, from which a conclusion might be drawn as to the time of their composition, are of very rare occurrence. Most of these, together with really historical statements, are to be found in the last books of the Aitareya-Brāhmaṇa (see *I. St.*, i. 199, ff.), from which it at any rate specially follows that their scene is the country of the Kuru-Pañchālas and Vaśa-Uśīnaras (see viii. 14). In the Śāṅkhāyana-Brāhmaṇa mention is made of a great sacrifice in the Naimisha forest; but this can hardly be identified with the one at which, according to the accounts of the Mahā-Bhārata, the second recitation of this epic took place. Another passage implies a very special prominence amongst the other gods of the deity who is afterwards known to us exclusively by the name of Śiva. He here receives, among other titles, those of Īśāna and Mahādeva, and we might perhaps venture to conclude from this that he was already the object of a very special worship. We are at any rate justified in inferring, unless the passage is an interpolation, that the Śāṅkhāyana-Brāhmaṇa ranks chronologically with the last books of the Saṃhitā of the White Yajus, and with those portions of its Brāhmaṇa and of the Atharva-Saṃhitā in which this nomenclature is likewise found. Lastly, a third passage of the Śāṅkhāyana-Brāhmaṇa implies, as already hinted, a special cultivation of the field of language in the northern parts of India. People resorted thither in order to become acquainted with the language, and on their return enjoyed a special authority on questions connected with it. [*I. St.*, ii. 309.]