Page:Atharva-Veda samhita volume 2.djvu/439



⌊This nineteenth book forms a supplement to the three grand divisions of the Atharvan collection, and is shown to be a later addition by a considerable variety of cumulative evidence. The evidence concerns in part the contents of the book; in part, the character of its tradition as respects both text and division and extent; and in part, the relation of its text to the ancillary Vedic treatises, the Pada-pāṭha and the Pañcapaṭalikā and the Prātiçākhya, and to the Kāuçika and Vāitāna sūtras.⌋

⌊The contents of book xix. resemble in large measure those of the earlier books, and wear (as W. says: see the General Introduction) the aspect of after-gleanings: of hymn 1 with i. 15; h. 18 with iv. 40; h. 34 with ii. 4, and especially 34. 4 with ii. 4. 6; h. 39 with v. 4; h. 44 with iv. 9; h. 57 with vi. 46. Had these hymns of book xix. been parts of the original collection, we should have expected (as W. intimates) to find them in their respective places with those of the earlier books. But more conclusive evidence could hardly be wished than is offered by hymn 23 of book xix., which hymn, under the form of "Homage to parts of the AV.," is incidentally also in some sort a table of contents to the preceding eighteen books, and presupposes their existence as a collection, and in an arrangement substantially accordant with that which they show in our text: cf. the introduction to h. 23.⌋

⌊The general character of the tradition in this book is strikingly inferior to that of the preceding eighteen. Such a statement can be duly verified only by a detailed study of the verses of the book, with reference to their intelligibility as they stand, and to the multiplicity or wildness of the variants presented; but a casual glance at the footnotes on pages 478, 484-5, and 539 of the Bombay edition will give some idea of their multiplicity. Many of them (like trī́n nā́kaṅs at 27. 4: see W's note) "are of the superficial variety of discordant readings which swarm in this book and have no real importance." Others are blunders of the grossest sort, as to which there is substantial agreement among the authorities or even complete harmony: such for example is the impossible yásmāi...yacchati at 32. 2, where not a single one has the absolutely necessary yácchati: cf. W's note to 45. 5. Especially noteworthy is vs. 4 of h. 40 as illustrating "what this nineteenth book can do in the way of corruption even of a text that is intelligibly handed down elsewhere" (so Whitney: the AV. version is so utterly corrupt that he is forced to translate from the RV. version, RV. i. 46. 6). If degrees of corruption and badness are to be distinguished, perhaps we may set down 49. 2 as the worst in book xix., or possibly in books i.-xix.; in the latter case, vi. 22. 3 is surely a close second. The uncertainties of the tradition of this book as to the precise amount of material to be included in it, and as to its division and the numeration of the parts, are rehearsed in the sequel: cf. the references at p. 898, end of ¶2.⌋

⌊'''Relation of the text of book xix. to the ancillary Vedic treatises.'''—First, the Pada-paṭha appears to be very modern, as it is certainly very blundering and untrustworthy: