Die Apokryphen des Ṛgveda by J.

Scheftelowitz
Review by: A. Berriedale Keith
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, (Jan., 1907), pp. 224-229
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25210396 .
Accessed: 09/02/2014 16:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and
Ireland.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 85.233.45.105 on Sun, 9 Feb 2014 16:54:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 224 NOTICES OF BOOKS.

Die AroKiiYPiiEN pes Kgvkda. By Dr. J. Scheftelowitz."

(Breslau, 190*0.)

Professor Hillebrandt is to be heartily congratulated on the

fact that he has obtained as the first of the series of Indische
Forschungen so a volume as Dr. Schcftelowitz'
interesting
edition of the Khilas of the llgveda from the unique MS.
discovered by Buhler in the course of his famous tour in
Kashmir. Although that MS. was sent to England for the
use of Max Muller, it was not employed in constituting
the text of the Khilas in the second edition of the Rgveda,
and unfortunately was not available to Oldenberg when he
discussed in his Prolegomena the Khilas. Luckily a transcript
of the Khilas the late Dr. Wenzel came into the hands
by
of Professor Macdonell, and was used with important results
in constituting the text of the Brhaddevatii,1 and now the
whole text has been made accessible.
Dr. Scheftelowitz has naturally followed in his text the

readings of the Kashmir MS., but he has supplied copious

references to the readings of other Vedic texts, which will
a definitive
greatly lighten the task of constituting ultimately
text of these Khilas. In his critical notes he has devoted
much attention to the peculiarities of the MS., which has
enabled hira frequently to restore in a convincing manner
the correct reading of doubtful passages. The fact, to which
he refers on p. 47, that s and m are confused in
frequently
Sar ad a MSS. affords a neat explanation of the appearance
of the reading mdnyase in the verse v, 4, 9B, nnndm tan
navy am mdnyase, where the other versions read, Aitareya
Aranyaka, samnyase, Siimaveda, sannyase, and Samaveda

Aranyaka Samhita, sanyase. The accent

of mdnyase is
difficult to explain, but if we
read sanyase we have the
Samhita form, which again stands by a haplography
Aranyaka
common in all Sanskrit MSS., and especially common in the
Kashmir MS., for sannyase, which leads to the samnyase
of the Aitareya Aranyaka. In iii, 15, 20b, agnir ddmsena na

1 See
Macdonell, Brhaddevatii, I, ixx-nxiii.

This content downloaded from 85.233.45.105 on Sun, 9 Feb 2014 16:54:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIE APOKRYPHEN DES RGVEDA. 225

trpyatu, the na is plainly a diplography, since it spoils the

metre aud is bad grammar. In iii, 16, 5b, for idivatu samd
should be read, perhaps, iaivatih samdh. In i, 2, 4b, rathinds
is perhaps a misreading for rathirds (cf. i, 3, 3; 10, 3), and
in ii, 6, 4b, padmastithdm for padmasthitdm.
Dr. Scheftelowitz estimates the age of the MS. at about
400 years, because of its faded writing and decayed condition.
The date can perhaps be fixed with greater certainty than
that. It is dated in the Saptarsi year 50, and this most

corresponds to a.d. 1575. The only alternatives

probably
are A.n. 1475 and a.d. 1675, but I doubt whether the MS.
is so old as the former or so modern as the latter of these
dates. The editor assumes that the concluding words of
the MS. gave the name of the scribe, but they are, I think,

certainly written in a later hand, and probably denote an

owner of the MS. The same hand has here and there made
corrections in the text.
In the introduction, which raises questions of great interest
and importance, Dr. Scheftelowitz argues that the Khila
hymns are in part as old as the The
Rgveda period.
Purorucs, the Nivids, and the Praisas belong to the oldest
part of that period, and represent the ritual tradition which,
following Professor Ilillebrandt, he argues to be older than
the Samhita. The Valukhilyas, Kuntapas, aud Mahiinamnis
belong to the end of the Rgvedic period, while other hymns
owe their origin to ritual developments iii the Yajurveda
and Brahmana periods such as the Medhusukta, the Subhesaja
hymn, and the Srisukta. The older Khilas were, he suggests
12), once parts of a fully recognised Samhita, viz. the
(p.
Mandiikeya, although Sakalya did not accept them for his
redaction. This fact is explained by the theory that the
Vedic hymns were preserved iu families of from
singers,
whose traditions the Siimaveda and the several recensions
of the Rgveda were independently made. Sakalya only
included in his recension such hymns as had received national
recognition, but the Vaskalasiikhii took some, and the
Mandiikeyasakha more, of the Khilas as fully recognised
hymns. In support of this view he points to the fact that
J.H.A.8. 1907. 15

This content downloaded from 85.233.45.105 on Sun, 9 Feb 2014 16:54:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 226 NOTICES OF BOOM.

the expression Khila does not occur in the enumeration of

sacred texts in the Taittirlya Aranyaka, or in Alvaltiyana,
or the other sutra writers. He holds that the Khilas were

recognised by Yiiska, by Saunaka in the Rkprntisakhya, and

by the authors of the Brhaddevatii and as parts
Rgvidhana
of the IJgveda (raw), and that only later were the Khilas
a distinct as seen
separated from the rcas and made collection,
in the Anuvakanukramanf, Manu, and the Arsanukrainanf.
It is impossible within the limits of a review to discuss
these views in detail, but some difficulties in the way of
their full acceptance may be noted. (1) They involve the
acceptance of Geld ner's view that Sitkalya belongs to the
later Yajasaneya period and not to the end of the Brahmana
to the Aitareya
period, and that he is anterior Brahmana

(p. 5), and is at ouce the redactor of the Samhita and the

PadapiUhas (cf. p. 6). OldenbergVBut arguments for the

of the Brahmanas to the adoption of the rules of
priority
sandhi aud the still later Pad apa tha are not adequately met.
(2) They also entail the acceptance of the theory of the
ritual tradition as older the Rgvedathan Samhita. But
* efforts to the case
Hillebrandt'* prove this iu detail in e.g. of
the funeral hymn are not now accepted,9 and
generally
view that the verses are older than the
Oldenberg'* mostly
ritual or coeval with it, but are not later modifications,
remains by far the more probable. (3) Similarly the theory
of Benfey and Weber (p. 14) that the Samaveda preserves
an independent and older tradition than the Rgveda has
hardly withstood the attacks of Aufrccht and Oldenberg.
(4) The language, stylo, aud contents of the vast bulk of
the Khilas undoubtedly belong to the latest period of the

Rgveda. It is quite- possible that some verses now preserved

as Khilas were parts of the Maudukeyasakha and are fairly
old, but the probability is not great. The really significant
fact is that Sakalya did not deal with the Khilas in his
Padapajha. Dr. Scheftelowitz argues (p. 16) that Yaska

1
Prolegomena, pp. 384 ri.
1
Z.D.M.G., xl, 712.
* Cf.*
Whitney, Atharvaveda, p. 848.

This content downloaded from 85.233.45.105 on Sun, 9 Feb 2014 16:54:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIE APOKRYPHEN DES RGVEDA. 227

cites Khila texts as nigamas, but examination will show that

all the cited texts occur iu other Vedic texts, and in any
case such citations could not prove that he considered the
In the case of
passages as belonging to the Rgveda Samhita.
the evidence that he did not know the Khilas as such
6aunaka,
is still less convincing. Tho fact that in the Pratisakhya the
Khilas are included proves nothing except what is admitted,
viz., that the Khilas existed in connection with the Rgveda at
the time of the composition of the Pratisakhya, which, it may
be added, is quite possibly later as we have it than Saunaka.
Since the word Khila occurs in the AnuvakanukraraanI and
the Arsanukramanl, these works are (p. 26) certainly not
Baunaka's or his older school. The Arsanukramanl is the

younger, misunderstands the Brhaddevata, there is onlythinks

one seer of the Khilas, and is later than the Sarvunukramanl.
But to argue from the available text of the Arsanukramanl
is too dangerous, for, as the citation from Sadgurusisya on

p. 30 shows, that text the parallel passages

is incomplete;
to the Brhaddevata may equally point to borrowing by the
latter; and Professor Macdonell,1 who considers that these
two Anukramunls are correctly attributed to Saunaka, has
proved* that the Sarvanukramani borrows throughout from
the Arsanukramanl and contains metrical fragments from it.
Further, as is admitted (p. 26), the evidence of the Brhaddevata
shows that Saunaka did not include these hymns iu his
enumeration of the hymns of the Rgveda. Why he did not
do so is of course open to dispute, but it is perfectly fair
to argue that he may have done so because they were in his
day regarded as not Rgvcdic in tho proper sense, aud the
evidence given above is in favour of his having used the
term Khilas of them. That this expression does not occur
in the Brhaddevata or the is no more surprising
Rgvidhana
than that it does not occur in the Pratisakhya, and it is not
to be expected that so paltry a species of literature as the
Khilas would find a place in such enumerations of the great

1
Brhaddevata, I, xxiii.
*
Fusty russ an R. von Roth, p. 112.

This content downloaded from 85.233.45.105 on Sun, 9 Feb 2014 16:54:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 228 notices of books.

literary genera as are found in the Taittirlya Aranyaka;

Asvahlyana, aud Sankhayana.
There remains one piece of evidence on which is
weight
thrown. In Anuvakiiuukramani, v. 17, it is said, Khaili
kdndm anddeio, fsmin granlhe 9nuvdkdndm, whence it is
concluded that at the time of the production of the Anuva
knnukramani the Khilas a separate collection with an
formed
Anuvaka division. But this conclusion is hardly warranted;
all the passage need mean is that the Anuvakas formed by
the Khilas while occupying their traditional position in the
text were omitted, as the
vargas extra
the four of
just
Sam plana hymn were not reckoned in by Saunaka.1 With
the Khilas reckoned in, the number of Anuvaka* as of vargas
must have been greater, but Saunaka omits
deliberately
them. But in any case the text of the Anuvakiinukramani
bears clear signs of adaptation.
It is most probable, therefore, that the Khilas are somewhat
later in date than the Rgveda Samhita. It is undeniably
the case with a good deal of the matter, and in no case is it
impossible.
Note may be taken of one
passages or
in which two
Dr. Scheftelowitz suggests alteration in Professor MacdonelPs
text of the Brhaddevatii. He reads (p. 22) tdn tu as equivalent
to tanis tu (this is clearly what is meant, though he prints
tdn tu), and takes mantrdn as understood in iii, 48b, and iu
iii, 49*, vrdhdv fk?n for pfthaktvesu, translating the lines as
referring to the Nivids. This rendering is attractive, but
it 18 almost impossible to explain tho vast preponderance of
manuscript evidence for prthaklvesu, and the commencement
of a new sentence with rksu is harsh. In iii, 79, he replaces
the reading tathaiva ca for puramdhiyd, which he regards
as the instrumental of puramdhi and therefore
apparently
on the ground that in iii, 50, the line ends
unintelligible,
eva vd and three pairs (dogdhrl dhenur vodhdnadedn
gives only
diuh saptih), and that there must be a fourth pair or nothing.
But the verses are not precisely parallel, the latter beginning

1
Prolegotnena, p. 500.

This content downloaded from 85.233.45.105 on Sun, 9 Feb 2014 16:54:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIE APOKRYPHEN DES RGVEDA. 229

with yad, and the reading puramdhiyd could never have

got into the MSS. if tathaiva ca, a verse filler,
commonplace
had already stood there. In both places the quotation seems

adapted, not directly from the Nivid, but from Vajasaneyi

Samhita, xxii, 22, which runs on puramdhir yosd, aud
puramdhiyd appears to be an irregular nominative giving
the beginning of a pair, the second element of which was
obvious, and would be clearly suggested by the very form of
the word. Dr. Scheftelowitz has mistaken the nature of the
evidence for the reading tathaiva ca. It consists only of three
?not the most important?of the MSS. of class A, and both
the most important MSS. of that class and those of B have
puramdhiyd. More important is the case of the verses
v, 87, 88, and 157, which he rejects as secoudary, because
they deal with passages of the Taittiriya Samhita which are

completely foreign to the Rgveda sacrificial tradition.

"
This
he confirms by the fact that "all good MSS. (A,ml) omit
these verses. But in point of fact v. 88 occurs in A as
well as B, and only v. 87 and v. 157 c,d are missing iu A,
while both occur in ml. The verses are undoubtedly
genuine and not secondary, and the discrepancy with the
Rgveda sacrificial tradition is hardly proved.
On the other hand, Dr. Scheftelowitz (p. 190) makes
a good suggestion for the interpretation of i, 54, 55, by
translating the last part of the verse, "The verse, R.V. viii,
14, 1, is a the hymn of Aitasa (i.e. Khila v, 15)
Sumkalpa;
is a Pralapa," for the reference of R.V. viii, 14, 1, to
Sam kal pa is convincing since the Khila v, 15, now gives
us the full text of the Aitasa His of
hymn. suggestion
Indratulyo for idam tulyo in the previous verse is ingenious,
but not necessary, aud if original would hardly have dis
appeared from the MSS. Professor Ifillebraudt's suggestion
to follow rl is, I thiuk, impossible.
The edition is carefully printed, aud contains many
valuable notes on points of language and translation.

A. Beruiedale Keith.

This content downloaded from 85.233.45.105 on Sun, 9 Feb 2014 16:54:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions