The Atharva-Veda Pratisakhya or Saunakiya Caturadhyayika

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

Introductory Note

The distinctive title of the work here published is Sauna-kiya-caturadhyayika, Saunaka's Treaties in Four Chapters.' We have for it, however, only the anthority of the signatures to the different portions of the manuscript containing the treatise; no reference to the latter by name has yet been discovered, so far as I am aware, in any other work of the Sanskrit literature. As regards the gender of the word, whether feminine or neuter, there is some question. In the signature to the first section (pada) of the first chapter (adhyaya), it is styled caturadhyayika, as also at the close of the first chapter. With the accords, farther, the name caturadhyayi-bhasya, given to the commentary in the signature of chapter IV, section 1, and at the close of the whole work. The neuter form, and the ascription to Saunaka, are found only in the final signature, which reads as follows (unamended) : iti saunakiyamcaturadhyayike caturthah padah: caturadhyayibhasya samaptah. The treatise was first brought to light, and its character determined, by Roth (see the Preface to his Nirukta, p. xlvii). It was recognized by him as being what is indicated by our title, a Pratisakhya to a text of the Atharva-Veda. That it has any inherent right to be called the Pratisakhya to the Atharva-Veda is not, of course, claimed for it; but, considering the extreme improbability that any other like phonetic treatise, belonging to any of the other schools of that Veda, will even be brought to light, the title of Atharva-Veda Pratisakhya finds a sufficient justification in its convenience, and in its analogy with the names given to the other kindred treatises by their respective editors, Rgnier, Weber, and Muller. Any special investigation of the questions of the authorship and date of our treatise, its relation to the other Pratisakhyas and to the present received text of the Atharva-Veda, and the like, is reserved for the commentary and the additional notes : it will be sufficient to say here, in a general way, that it concerns itself with that part of the Atharvan-text which is comprised in its first eighteen books, and with that alone, and that it covers the whole ground which the comparison of the other treatises shows us to be necessary to the completeness of a Pratisakhya, differing from any of them not more than they differ from on another.

The manuscript authority upon which the present edition is founded is a single codex (Chambers collection, No. 143; Weber, No. 361), belonging to the Royal Library of Berlin, a copy of which was made by me in the winter of 1852-3; it contains, besides the text of the Pratisakhya, a commentary upon it, by an author not named, which styles itself simply caturadhyayi-bhasya, 'Cammentary to the Four-chaptered in Weber's Catalogue of the Berlin Sanskrit Manuscripts (p. 87-8). The signature at the end is as follows (with one or two obvious emendations) : srir astu: lekhakapathakayoh subham bhavatu : sricandikayai namah : sriramah : samvat 1714 varse jyaisthasuddha 9 dine samaptalikhitam pustakam. The date corresponds to May, 1656; but it must, as in many other cases, be doubtful whether this is the date of the manuscript in our possession, or of the one from which this was copied: in the present instance, the latter supposition may be regarded as decidedly the more probable. Most unfortunately, considering the extreme rarity of the work, the manuscript is a very poor one. Not only is it every where excessively incorrect, often beyond the possibility of successful emendation; it is also defective, exhibiting lacunae at several points. Some may be of opinion, then, that the publication of the Pratisakhya upon its authority alone is premature, and should not have been undertaken. This would certainly be the case, were any other copies of the work known to be in existence; to neglect to procure their collation before proceeding to publish would be altogether incxcusable. But, so far as is hitherto known, the Berlin codex is unique. No public or private library in Europe, nor any in India accessible to Europeans, has been shown to possess a duplicate of it. For assistance in procuring a second copy, I made application some years since to Prof. Fitz-Edward Hall, then of Benares, whose knowledge, experience, and public and private position made him the person of all others most likely to be of service in such a way; and he was kind enough to interest himself zealously in my behalf in collected for me a mass of valuable materials respecting the other Pratisakhyas, for that of the Atharva-Veda nothing could be found. Considering then, the faintness of the hope that additional manuscripts would later be obtainable, and considering the peculiar interest of this class of works-well attested by the triple publications, within a few years past, of Regnier, Weber, and Muller-and the desirableness of placing as speedily as possible before the eyes of scholars the whole material furnished by them, in order to the greater force and conclusiveness of the results which some are already hastening to draw from them for the literary history of India, it has seemed best to publish the treatise without farther delay. Several circumstances deserve to be noted as supporting this decision, by diminishing the disadvantages arising from the scantiness and poorness of the manuscript material. In the first place, as regards the lacunae, they are, with two exceptions, of insignificant importance, and do not either cause the loss of a rule or render its interpretation doubtful: while, in the two instances (both occurring in chapter III) in which one or more rules are lost, the loss at least lies within the limits of a certain definite subject, and, though much to be regretted that the commentary is generally full enough to establish the true version of the rules, and yet, at the same time, too poor and scanty to render its own restoration important. The general method of the commentator is as follows: he first states the rule, then restates it in the baldest possible paraphrase, merely supplying the lacking copula, and adding the specifications, if any, of which the presence is inferrible from previous rules; next follow the illustrative citations; and finally, the rule is given once more, along with the one next following, which is euphonically combined with it, and of which the paraphrase and illustration then follow in their turn. As an example, I cite her in full rule i. 7, with its commentary beginning from the final repetition of the next preceding rule.

Thus we have everywhere (unless, as is sometimes the case, a few words have dropped out from the copy) a three fold repetition of each rule, and its true from is almost always restorable from their comparison, notwithstanding the corruptions of the manuscript. If, now, the commentary were as full and elaborate as those of the other known Pratisakhya, it would have been alike trying and unsatisfactory either to endeavor to edit it, or to disregard it : while, as the case actually stands, it has itself attempted so little that we care comparatively little to know precisely what it says. Wherever its usual meager methods is followed, accordingly, little attention will be found paid to it in the notes. Nor has it seemed to me otherwise than a needless labour to notice, except in special cases, the corrupt readings of the manuscript-and this the more especially, as my distance from the original readers it impossible to test by a renewed collation the accuracy of my copy. The citations from the Atharvan text are also given in their correct form, without farther remark, since, whatever the disguise under which the manuscript may present them it has generally been not difficult for one familiar with the Atharvan, and in possession of a verbal index to its text, to trace them out and restore their true readings. There are a few notable instances in which the commentator abandons his customary reticence, and dispreads himself upon the subject with which he is dealing: and in such cases the attempt is made to follow him as closely as the manuscript will allow. Much more frequently than he ventures to speak in his own person, he cites the dicta of other authorities; occasionally referring to them by name; more often introducing his quotations by a simple apara aha, 'another has said;' and very frequently making extracts without any introduction, whatever, as if o matter which might lawfully be woven in as an integral part of his own comment. The work, if it be a single work, from which these anonymous citations are made, is written in the common sloka, tise itself, or a kind of metrical Pratisakhya to the Atharva-Veda; wearing, however, more the aspect of a commentary than does the metrical Pratisakhya to the Rg-Veda.

What has here been said of the commentary applies only to that part of it which ends with the third section of the fourth chapter: the concluding section, on the karma-patha, is of an entirely different chapter, as will be explained at the place.

While thus but imperfectly aided by the native commentator, I have enjoyed one compensating advantage over these who have undertaken hitherto the publication of works of this class, in that I have been able to avail myself of the results of their labours. Had it not been for their efficient help, much in the present treatise might have remained obscure, of which the explanation has now been satisfactorily made out; and I desire here to make a general acknowledgment of my indebtedness to them, which I shall have occasion to repeat hereafter in particular cases. I have thought it incumbent upon me to refer, under every rule, or in connection with every subject treated of, in the work here published, to the corresponding portions of the other Pratisakhya, giving a briefer or more detailed statement of the harmonies and discrepancies of doctrine which they contain. To the Rg-Veda Pratisakhya reference is made primarily by chapter (patala) and verse (sloka), the number of the rule cited being then also added, according to the enumeration of both Regnier and Muller; the latter (in the first six chapters only) in Roman figures, the former in Arabic. The Vajasaneyi Pratisakhya is cited from Weber's edition, already referred to, and according to his enumeration of its rules. For my ability to include in the conspectus of phonetic doctrines the Taittiriya Pratisakhya of Karttikeya, I have to thank Prof. Hall, as above acknowledged; the excellent manuscripts of the text and of the text and commentary (tribhasyaratna) which he procured for me will be made, I trust, to help the publication of that treatise in the course of the next year, either by myself or by some one else. The mode of reference to the Taittiriya Pratisakhya which has hitherto been usual I have abandoned. The work is divided into twenty-four chapters (adhyaya), which are classed together in two sections (prasna), each of twelve chapters : and Roth-as also Weber, following his example-has cited it by section and chapter, omitting any enumeration and specification of the rules into which each chapter is divided. But the prasna division is of as little account as the corresponding division of the Rk Pratisakhya into three sections (adhyaya); and there appears to be no good reason why this treatise should not be cited, like those pertaining to the RK, the White Yajus, and the Atharvan, by chapter and rule simply; as I have done. To Panini's grammar (in Bohtlingk's edition) reference is also frequently made-in all cases, it is hoped, where the comparison would be of any particular interest. The special relation exhibited by our treatise in many points to the system of general grammar where of Panini is the authoritative exponent would perhaps have justified a more detailed comparison; but I have both feared to be led too far, and distrusted my ability to draw out the correspondences of the two in a perfectly satisfactory manner. To determine in full the relations of Panini and the Pratisakhyas, when the latter shall have been all made public, will be an important and a highly repaying task for some one more versed than I am in the intricacies of the Paninean system.

The peculiar method, so commonly adopted in our treatise (e.g.i. 34, 65, 85), of applying a rule to the series of passages or words to which it refers, by mentioning only one of them and including the rest in an "etc." (adi) which is to be filled out elsewhere-or the familiarly known (gana-method of Panini-and the remissness of the commentator, whose duty it was to fill out the ganas, but who has almost always failed to do so, have rendered necessary on the part of the editor a more careful examination of the Atharvan text and comparison of it with the Pratisakhya, than has been called for or attempted in connection with any other of the kindred treatises. It has been necessary to construct, as it were, an independent Pratisakhya upon the text, and to compare it with that one which has been handed down to us by the Hindu tradition, in order ;to test the completeness of the latter, fill up its deficiencies, and note its redundancies. The results of the comparison, as scattered through the notes upon the rules, will be summed up in the additional notes, to which are also relegated other matters which would otherwise call for attention in this introduction. In examining and excerpting the text, full account has been taken of the nineteenth book, and of those parts of the twentieth which are not extracted bodily and without variation from the Rg-Veda. References are made, of course, to the published text of the Atharva-Veda; if a phrase or word occurs more than once in the text, the first instance of its occurrence is given, with an "e.g.". Prefixed.) Readings of the manuscript which it is thought desirable to give are generally referred by numbers to the bottom of the page.

The occurrence, here and there in the notes, of emendations of the published text of the Atharvan calls for a few words of explanation here. The work of constructing the text was, by the compelling force of circumstances, so divided between the two editors that the collation of the manuscripts, the writing out of a text, and the preparation of a critical apparatus, fell to myself, while Prof. Roth undertook the finel revision of the text, and the carrying of it throuh the press after my return to this country. Such being the case, and free communication being impossible, occasional misconceptions and errors could not well be avoided. Moreover, the condition of the Atharvan as handed down by the tradition was such as to impose upon the editors as a duty what in the case of any of the other Vedas would have been an almost inexcusable liberty-namely, the emendation of the text-readings in many place. In so treating such a text, it is not easy to hit the precise mean be ween too much and too little; and while most of the alterations made were palpably and imperatively called for, and while many others would have to be made in translating, there are also a few cases in which a closer adherence to the manuscript authorities might have been preferable. Farther, in the matter of modes of orthography, where the usage of the manuscripts was varying and inconsistent, our choice was not always such as more mature study and reflection justify. Whenever cases of any of these kinds are brought up in connection with the rules and illustrations of the Pratisakhya, I am free to suggest what appears to me a preferable reading or usage. In referring to the manuscripts of the Atharvan, I make use of the following abbreviations (which are also those employed in the maring of the edited text, in books xix and xx): 1st, Samhita MSS.: "is the Berlin MS. (Ch. 115, Weber 338), containing books xi-xx; "P." is the Paris MS. (D. 204, 205), and contains the whole text, and books vii-x repeated; "M." and "W." are manuscripts of the Bodleian library at Oxford, M. in the Mill collection, and W. in the Wilson: M. is a copy of the same original, by the same hand, and in the same form, as P., and it lacks the part of the text which is found double in the other: W. lacks book xviii; "E." is the East India House manuscript, Nos. 682 and 760; "H." is in the same library, No. 1137, and contains only books i-vi; 'I.' is the Polier MS., in the British Museum : a copy made from it for Col. Martin is also to be found in the East India House library, Nos. (I believe) 901 and 2142, 2nd pada MSS. These are all in the Berlin library. "Bp." Is Ch. 8 (Weber 332) for books i-ix, and Ch. 108 (Weber 335) for books x-xviii : These are two independent manuscripts, but are included under one designation for convenience's sake, as complementing one another. "Bp." Is Ch. 117 (Weber 331) for book I, and Ch. 109, 107 (Weber 333-334) for book v, and books vi-ix: the two latter are accidentally separated parts of the same manuscript, and stand also in very close relationship, as respects their original, with Bp. (Ch. 8) : the other is independent. Of book xix there is no pada-text to be found, and probably none was ever in existence : and the pada MSS. Of book xx are only extracts from the Rk pada-text.