Page:Atharva-Veda samhita volume 2.djvu/475

verse and brahmán in the second, as in our text. Indeed, in a corresponding verse in TB. (ii. 4. 7¹⁰), bráhman ⌊more appropriately, it would seem, if I am right in supposing that vss. 29 and 30 of hymn 23 refer to the Brahmaveda: cf. p. 932, l. 3⌋ is used every time: bráhmajyeṣṭhā (its commentary takes this as vocative) vīryà sámbhṛtāni bráhmā ’gre jyéṣṭham dívam ā́ tatāna: ṛtásya bráhma prathamó ’tá (! its comment paraphrases by simply prathamám) jajñe ténā ’rhati bráhmaṇā spárdhituṁ káḥ. Our comm. gives a second explanation of brahmajyeṣṭhā as = brahmaṇā jyeṣṭhena, the case-ending of the former word being omitted, as well as the in part of that of the second!

23. Homage to parts of the Atharva-Veda.

[Atharvan.—triṅçat mantroktadevatyam uta cāndramasam. 1. āsurī bṛhatī; 2-7, 20, 23, 27. dāivī triṣṭubh; 8, 10-12, 14-16. prājāpatyā gāyatrī; 17, 19, 21, 24, 25, 29. dāivī pan̄kti; 9, 13, 18, 22, 26, 28. dāivī jagatī; (1-29. 1-av.).]

⌊Verses 1-29, prose.⌋ ⌊Not found in Pāipp.⌋ The application of the hymn, as defined by the comm., was given with the one preceding.

As in the case of the preceding hymn, the comm. to all the verses is given together at the end. Its main parts are given below under the separate verses. It further declares that by the words ekarca to daçarca are designated the ṛṣis named Atharvan, and by those from ekādaçarca to viṅçati are designated the ārṣeyas named Ātharvaṇa; and it quotes as authority the beginning of i. l. 5 of the Gopatha Brāhmaṇa.

⌊With regard to this hymn in general, and leaving books xix. and xx. out of account in the statements that follow: in the first place it is clear that the books of the third grand division of the AV., books xiii.-xviii. (see p. 708), are intended by verses 23-28 respectively (see under the verses below and see the introductions to the several books).⌋

⌊In the second place it is clear that the hymns of the books (but not the books themselves severally) of the first grand division of the AV., books i.-vii. (see p. 388), are intended to be covered by verses 1-15 and 19 and 20 (between 19 and 20 we miss the dvyṛcebhyaḥ which the commentator's text has). In this connection it is significant that vs. 1 begins with homage "to them of four verses," which is the norm of our first book, and not with homage "to them of one verse"—see the first table on p. 388. Moreover, as appears from the table on p. cxliv, the first grand division contains a hymn or hymns of every number of verses from 4 verses to 18 verses (mostly in books i.-v.) and from 1 verse to 3 verses (exclusively in books vi. and vii.). Again, while there is in the first grand division (and only there) one hymn or more of every number of verses from 1 verse to 18 verses, it is interesting to note that there is, in the whole AV. (books i.-xviii. or even i.-xix.), not one hymn of 19 verses, nor yet one of 20 verses (cf. p. 471 top): and of this fact account seems to be taken in so far as the form of our verses 16 and 17 differs from that of the 15 preceding.⌋

⌊Thirdly, the books of the second grand division of the AV. (books viii.-xii.) consist of hymns of over 20 verses (p. 471, top). There is, therefore, in all our present hymn, no special reference to this division, unless it be in verse 18, which may accordingly mean 'To the division (kāṇḍa) of great (mahant) [hymns], hail,' and refer to books viii.-xii. It is not impossible that a Hindu might use kāṇḍa to signify a 'division' comprising several books and tantamount to one of our so-called "grand divisions" (see my note to vs. 18). Against my view, I might well object that dīrgha would be a more appropriate adjective than mahant for the 'long' individual hymns of which the division consists; but, per contra, if the difference between mahadguṇa and mahāguṇa be a valid parallel, the text ought, if it means 'great book,' to read mahākāṇḍāya. A