of the Chāndogya Upanishad (v. 24. 4), where it is said of the sacrificial remnant that, if it be offered even to an outcaste, it is as good as if offered to the omnipresent All-soul, provided only it be done with the right knowledge. And a similar idea is perhaps meant to be expressed by our text here, AV. xv. 13. 8, 9.⌋
⌊In spite of its puerility and surface-obscurity, the book is not unworthy of a searching investigation. That investigation should be one of much wider scope than I can now make; but I presume that the principal passages of the literature which would here come into consideration are those that treat of the vrātya-stomas (ceremonies by which vrātyas gain admission to the Brahmanical order), namely the seventeenth adhyāya of the PB. (parts 1-4) and the eighth prapāṭhaka of LÇS. (part 6).—Excerpts from these passages were given by Weber (1849), Ind. Stud. i. 33, 52; and, more recently, the main points were reported by Hillebrandt, Ritual-litteratur, p. 139. And the whole matter has been made the subject of an article by Rājārām Rāmkrishṇa Bhāgavat, in the Journal of the Bombay Branch of the RAS., vol. xix., pages 357-364. He regards the vrātyas as non-Aryans. It is noteworthy that a number of the articles of the outfit of a vrātya as rehearsed by these two texts are found also in our AV. text: so, for example, the turban, the goad, the vipatha.
⌊The divisions of the book.—To begin with, the division into two anuvākas or 'lessons,' the first of 7 and the second of 11 paryāyas, is clearly avouched by the Old Anukr. (see next ¶ but one); and it is also proved by AV. xix. 23. 25, where the vrā́tya-book is mentioned as a dual, the text reading vrātyā́bhyāṁ [accent!: sc. anuvākā́bhyām?] svā́hā, 'to the anuvakas about the vrā́tya hail!'—The decad-division is wanting.⌋
⌊In the foregoing books, the Berlin edition has grouped together for the purposes of numeration the combinable paryāyas (see pages 471-2) so as to form the groups which it numbers as viii. 10 (with 6 paryāyas); ix. 6 (with 6); [ix. 7 has but 1;] xi. 3 (with 3); xii. 5 (with 7); and xiii. 4 (with 6). For theoretical consistency, the same procedure should have been followed in this book and the next: but the practical difference would have amounted to little (we should have had to cite, for example, xv. 1. 181 instead of xv. 18. 1, or xvi. 1. 91 instead of xvi. 9. 1); moreover, the procedure of the Berlin edition is questionable and has not been followed by the Bombay edition. For an account of the discrepancies thus arising, see pages 610-611; and for SPP's detailed defense of his procedure, see the Critical Notice in his first volume, pages 21-22, where he prints the pertinent text of the Old Anukr. in full and that of the Major Anukr. in large part.—A comparison of the two texts shows that the later work has quoted the precise words of its predecessor throughout.⌋
⌊The quotations from the Old Anukr. are given piecemeal at the end of the anuvāka or paryāya or group of paryāyas to which they severally refer. They may here be given in metrical form. Of the first line, the prior half refers to the first anuvāka as a whole, and the latter half to the second. Lines 2-4 refer to the paryāyas of the first anuvāka; and lines 5-10 refer to those of the second. The numbers in parentheses refer to the paryāyas as counted from the beginning of the anuvāka; and those in brackets refer to the paryāyas as counted from the beginning of the book.
vrātyādyāḥ sapta paryāyā ekādaça paro bhavet:
astāu (i. 1) dvyūnā tatas triṅçad (i. 2) ekādaça paro bhavet (i. 3).
dvyūnā tu viṅçatis turyaḥ (i. 4) pañcamaḥ ṣoḍaça smṛtaḥ (i. 5):
viṅçatiḥ ṣaṭ ca ṣaṣṭhaç ca (i. 6) saptamaḥ pañcaka ucyate (i. 7).
