4 I. ALLGEMEINES UND SPRACHE. VEDIC GRAMMAR. of collections in which the matter was largely borrowed and arbitrarily cut up into groups of verses or into single verses solely with a view to meet new liturgical wants. Representing a later linguistic stage, these collections start from a modernized text in the material borrowed from the Rgveda, as is unmistakable when that material is compared with the original passages. The text of the Sāmaveda is almost entirely secondary, containing only seventy-five stanzas not derived from the Rgveda. Its variants are due in part to inferiority of tradition and in part to arbitrary alterations made for the purpose of adapting verses removed from their context to new ritual uses. An indication that the tradition of the Yajur and Atharva Vedas is less trust- worthy than that of the Rgveda is the great metrical irregularity which is characteristic of those texts. Of all these the Vājasaneyi Samhita is the best preserved, being not only guarded by an Anukramaṇī, a Prātiśākhya, and a Pada text, but partially incorporated in the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa, where the first 18 books are quoted word for word besides being commented on. The Taittirīya Samhita has also been carefully handed down, being protected by an Anukramaṇī, a Prātiśākhya, and a good Pada text³. The Maitrāyaṇī Samhitā is not so well authenticated, having no Prātiśākhya and only an inferior Pada text, of which but a single somewhat incorrect Ms. is known 4. Least trustworthy of all is the tradition of the Kāṭhaka which lacks both a Prātiśākhya and a Pada text. Moreover only one complete Ms. of this Samhitā is known5. As that Ms. is unaccented, it has only been possible to mark the accent in small portions of that part of the text which has as yet been published (Books I-XVIII). As, however, the texts of the Black Yajurveda often agree even verbally, and the Maitrāyaṇī Samhitā is closely connected with the Kāṭhaka, the readings of the latter can to some extent be checked by those of the cognate Samhitās. The inferiority of tradition in the Atharvaveda was increased by the lateness of its recognition as a canonical text. It contains many corrupt and uncertain forms, especially in Book XIX, which is a later addition6. The text is guarded by Anukramaņīs, a Prātiśākhya, and a Padapāṭha7. The latter, however, contains serious errors both in regard to accentuation and the division of compound verbal forms, as well as in other respects. The Padapatha of Book xix, which is different in origin from that of the earlier books, is full of grave blunders9. The critical and exegetical notes contained in WHITNEY'S Translation of the Atharvaveda accordingly furnish important aid in estimating the value of the readings in the Saunakīya recension of the Atharvaveda. The Paippalada recension is known in only a single corrupt Ms., which has been reproduced in facsimile by Professors GARBE and BLOOMFIELD ¹0 About one-eighth or one-ninth of this recension is original, being found neither in the Saunakiya text of the Atharvaveda nor in any other known collection of Mantras ". The various readings of this recension, in the ¹ On the Padapāṭha of the Sāmaveda see 6 See LANMAN's Introduction to Book XIX BENFEY's edition of that Samhitã, p. LVII—LXIV. | in WHITNEY'S Translation of the Atharva- 2 See WHITNEY's Introduction to the veda. Atharvaveda, p. cxxvII; BLOOMFIELD, The Atharvaveda, Grundriss II, I B, $ 1. 7 See LANMAN's Introduction to WHITNEY'S Translation, p. LXIX—LXXIV. 3 Cp. WEBER's edition p. VIIIf., and Indische Studien 13, 1-114 (Ueber den Padapätha der Taittiriya-Samhitā). 8 The Padapatha of the Atharvaveda has been edited in full by SHANKAR P. PANDIT in his Atharvaveda, 4 See L. v. SCHROEDER's edition, Intro- duction, p. xxXVI f. 5 Cp. L. V. SCHROEDER'S Introduction to his edition, $ 1. 9 Cp. BLOOMFIELD, The Atharvaveda P. 16. 10 The Kashmirian Atharva-Veda, Balti- more 1901. 11 BLOOMFIELD, The Atharvaveda p. 15;
