it augurs no contempt or neglect of the Atharvan, if in a charm constructed for the purpose of obtaining a know- ledge of the Vedas, AV. VII, 54 (Kaus\ 42, 9), only rzk, saman, ya^"u^, veda, and oblation (haviA) are mentioned : the person who here desires Vedic learning is not in training for Atharvan priesthood, and therefore does not take care to include this speeialistic learning l. And similarly a con- siderable number of additional Atharvan passages, IX, 6, 1. 2; XI, 7, 5. 24; 8, 23 ; XII, 1, 38 ; XV, 3, 6-8 ; 6, 3, in which the Atharvan is not mentioned with the other Vedic compositions, betray no sign of conscious exclusion or con- tempt of the Atharvan. On the other hand, this very omission ensures the interesting result that the Sawhita of the AV., unlike its ritualistic adjuncts (see p. lvii ff.), is in no wise engaged either in self-glorification, or in polemics against the other Vedas. It seems altogether evident that the Atharvan diaskeuasts were totally uncon- scious of any disadvantages inherent in their text, or any contemptuous treatment on the part of the adherents of the other Vedas.
In addition to the explicit designation of the Atharvan compositions as atharvangirasa/^, bhesha^ani, atharva/zani, &c, there is to be noted in the 6aunakiya-text of the hymns a decided advance in the association of the names Atharvan, Ahgiras, and Bhrzgu with the practices and conditions which these hymns are aimed at. The older, broader, and vaguer mythic personality of all three which appears, e.g. in RV. VIII, 43, 13 ; X, 14, 6 ( = AV. XVIII, i, 58) ; X, 92, 10, is still continued in the Atharvan (VI, 1, 1 ; XI, 6, 13; XVI, 8. 11-14): Atharvan, Angiras, and Bhrzgu are at times simply semi-divine, or wholly divine
mentioned as the fourth Veda the poet lapses into the more familiar traividya, in a stanza which, like st. 20, aims to state that the Vedas are derived from Skambha (Brahma), a monotheistic personification ; cf. Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts, V, 378.
1 A similar passage in a Sutra of the RV. (Asv Grih. Ill, 3, i-3\ on the same occasion, namely, the study of the Veda, does not hesitate to include the Atharvan along with many other Vedic texts. This does not argue conscious preference, any more than the Atharvan passage indicates conscious exclusion ; cf. below, p. xliv.
Introduction. Xxx1u
beings, whose office is entirely non-Atharvanic. But on the other hand the Atharvans appear at IV, 37, 1 as slayers of the Rakshas (similarly IV, 3, 7) ; the Atharvans and Arigiras fasten amulets, and consequently slay the Dasyus, at X, 6, 20 ; and the name Bhrzgu appears at V, 19, 1 (cf. TS. I, 8, 18, 1 ; TB. I, 8, 2, 5) as the typical designation of a Brahma/^a, i.e. here, of an Atharvan priest. Such specialisations of these names are unknown in the RV. Especially noteworthy is the evident beginning of the asso- ciation of the name angirasa with aggressive witchcraft or spells, and the somewhat less clear corresponding correla- tion of the stem atharva/za with auspicious charms (see above, p. xviii ff.). Altogether the impression arises that the names Atharvan, Angiras, and Bhrz'gu, connected with the redaction of the AV., have in the text of that Veda assumed, or commenced to assume, the office which the diaskeuast and the ritualistic texts of the Atharvan have definitely and permanently bestowed upon them.
In the domain of the miti, exclusive of the Rig-veda, i. e.
in the Ya^xis-samhitas, and the Brahma/zas, the position
of the Atharvan is on the whole defined with
the AV. in sufficient clearness. It depends altogether on
the rest of the practical character of these texts as ex-
the smti. L
ponents of the great Vedic sacrifices, the jrauta-performances : these, by their very nature, exclude any very direct interest in the systematic charms of the bhesha^-ani and abhL£arika/zi. Such sorcery as is inter- woven with the .sTauta-performances has acquired inde- pendent expression in the metrical and prose formulas the Ya^-us-sa/^hitas ; it figures in the form and by the name of sacrificial formulas (ya^u^shi) as part of the threefold Veda (trayt vidya). Thus the subject-matter of formulas like the following : ' I dig (pits) that slay the Rakshas, destroy the spells that belong to Vish/zu ; that spell here which my equal or unequal has dug into (the ground) do I cast out ; I make subject here my equal or my unequal that plans hostile schemes against me ' (Tait. S. I, 3, 2, 1 ; VI, 2, 11, 1. 2; Maitr. S. I, 2, 10. 11 ; Va£\ S. V, 23 ff. ; Sat. Br. Ill, 5, 4, 8 ff.), is by its very terms [42] c
XXXIV HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
Atharvanic, and the practices by which its recitation is supplemented might be described in the Kaimka-sutra. The formula yo asman dvesh/i yam ka vaykm dvishma/z, ' he that hates us and whom we hate ' (shall perish, or the like), occurs countless times in the Ya^us-texts, as well as in the Atharvan charms. The aims and the acts of the Atharvan are present at the Vedic sacrifice, as well as at the practices of private life ; the difference lies in the degree of applicability, and the degree of prominence : in the .sruti-literature the sphere of the Atharvan is restricted to matters that are incidental and subsidiary, intended merely to pave the way for the main issue, the successful ffopatrhing of the sarri fire fo thp^cmdg^ anH the undis- turbed gratification of the priests (the ish/am and the pur- tam). Under these circumstances and at such a time pronounced hostility against the Atharvan would be a paradox, too silly even for the Ya^-us-texts and the Brah- ma^as ; no such hostility or repugnance is in evidence : that is reserved for a later and more reflective age.
In the first place then, the mythic personages Atharvan, Angiras, and Bhrzgu, whose proper names in the course of time are growingly restricted to the sphere of the Atharvan, continue in their pristine position of demi-gods. At Maitr. S. I, 6, i the Angiras are still gods, angirasa;^ tva devana^ vratena * dadhe ; similarly Tait. Br. I, 1,4, 8, bhrzgwiam tva*ngirasa;/z vratapate vratena * dadhami ; cf. also Tait. Br. Ill, 2, 7, 6 ; Maitr. S. I, 1, 8 ; Ykg. S. I, 18 (Sat. Br. I, 2, 1,13; Katy. Sr. II, 4, 38) ; Apast. Sr, V, 11, 7. For Atharvan, see Tait. S. V, 1, 4, 3 ; 6, 6, 3 ; Tait. Br. I, 1, 10, 4; Va£\ S. VIII, 56; XI, 32. And so innu- merable other instances. Needless to say, the descendants of the three divinities, conceived eponymically as the founders of families of jRishis, the Atharva/za, Angirasa, and Bhargava, enjoy the same rights, and hold the same position of honour as the other families of ^z'shis, it being reserved for the later Atharvan writings to extol them beyond measure, and to establish them as the typical teachers 1. Thus Atharvan Daiva is the name of an ancient
1 Cf. Weber, Omina und Portenta, p. 347.
Introduction. Xxxv
teacher, Sat. Br. XIV, 5, 5, 22 ; 7, 3, 28 ; Dadhya/z/k Atharva^a, Tait. S. V, I, 4, 4 ; 6, 6, 3 ; vSat. Br. IV, 1, 5, 1 8 ; VI, 4, 2, 3 ; the countless Angirasa, of which the RV. Anukramam counts no less than 45 \ e. g. Sat. Br. IV, 1. 5, 1 ; Kaush. Br. XXX, 6 ; Ait. Br. VIII, 21, 13 ; Apast. Sr. V, 11, 7 ; and the equally frequent Bhargava, Tait. S. I, 8, 18, 1 ; Sat. Br. ib. ; Ait. Br. VIII, 2, 1. 5 ; Kau^. Br. XXII, 4. Occasionally, doubtless, even the .sruti feels the connection that has been established between these names and the sphere of Atharvanic literary activity, as when the KatA. S. XVI, 13 mentions a Rishi Bhisha^- Atharva^a 2 (see Weber, Ind. Stud. Ill, 459) ; the Kaush. Br. XXX, 6, a ^zshi Ghora Angirasa ; or when the Pa#£. Br. XII, 8, 6 states that Dadhya/z£ Angirasa was the chaplain (puro- dhaniya) of the gods.
The manner in which the hymns of the Atharvan are alluded to in the ^rauta-texts is as follows. Ordinarily the texts are preoccupied with the sacrificial literature in the narrower sense, and hence devote themselves to the men- tion and laudation of the trayi vidya, either without recount- ing its specific literary varieties, or by fuller citation of the terms rzk, saman, ya^u^. For these are substituted not infrequently other terms like stoma, uktha, ^astra, udgitha. &c, special liturgical varieties, also derived directly from the sphere of the .n*auta-performances, and, in fact, strictly dependent upon these performances for their existence. On the other hand, whenever the irauta-texts mention, or make draughts upon other literary forms like itihasa, pura;za, gatha, sutra, upanishad, and many others, the Atharvan literature is almost unfailingly included, and that too almost invariably in the following order : the traividya is mentioned first, the Atharvan holds the fourth place, and next follow in somewhat variable arrangement the types itihasa, &c.
1 Cf. Weber, Episches im vedischen Ritual, Sitzungsberichte der Koniglich- Preussischen Akademie d. Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1891, p. 812 (46 of the reprint).
2 The same apocryphal Rishi is reported by the Anukramams as the author of the oshadhistuti, 'the hymn to the plants/ RV. X, 97 ; Nig. S. XII, 75-89.
XXXVI HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
Thus the Taittiriya-sa^hita mentions riky saman, and
yzguk alone at II, 4, 12, 7 ; 5, 7, 1 ; VI, 1, 2, 4; VII, 3,
1,4; 12, 1 ; the same categories are alluded to
TheAV.in Zl ' ' . , . A ,
the at II, 4, 1 1, 6, in the expressions samna^, ya^u-
Taittiriya- sham, and ukthamadanam ; at III, 2, 9, 5. 6
sa/rchita. ' / • \
in the expressions udgatrz>/am (with udgitha), uktha^awsinam (with rikak), and adhvaryu^am ; cf. also ish/aya^usha//, stutastomasya, j-astokthasya at I, 4, 28, 1. The only mention of Atharvan literature is at VII, 5, 11, 2, under the designation angirasa^ (without atharva/za/2 1), and here the text is as follows : rigbhya/i svaha, ya^*urbhya// svaha, samabhya/* svaha, angirobhya/^ svaha, vedebhya/^ svaha, gathabhya/2 svaha, nanUa/z/sibhya/z svaha, raibhi- bhya^ svaha.
This also, in the main, is the nature of the references to
the AV. in the Satapatha-brahma^a. Either the term
tray! vidya is used, or rik, saman, and yagu/z
The AV. in . -,. . 1 T tt
the are mentioned explicitly: I, 1, 4, 2. 3; \\,
StSSr 6' 4> 2~7 5 IV, 6, 7> 1. 2 ; V, 5, 5, 1. 9 ; VI, 1, r, 8 ; 3, i, 10. 11. 20 ; VII, 5, 2, 52 ; VIII, 5, 2, 4; IX, 5, 2, 12; X, 4, 2, 21. 22; 5, 2, i. 2; XI, 5, 4, 18; 8, 3-7; XII, 3, 3, 2 ; 4, 9 ; XIV, 4,3, 12 ; 83 15, 2. 9. In all these cases there is no mention of the Atharvan ; but neither is there any mention of any other literary type that has a distinctive standing outside of the trayi vidya. On the other hand, the Atharvan is mentioned in a number of cases, every one of which presents also a lengthy list of addi- tional literary forms. Thus XI, 5, 6, 4-8, rikzh, ya^u^shi, samani, atharvangirasa^, anu^asanani, vidya, vakovakyam, itihasapura^am, gatha nara^awsya^ ; XIII, 4, 3, 3 ff., riko veda^, ya^u/^shi veda>&, atharva/zo veda^, ahgiraso veda^, sarpavidya veda/*, deva^anavidya veda^, maya veda//, itihaso veda/z, pumnam veda/z, samani veda^ ; XIV, 5, 4, 10; 6, 10, 6; 7, 3, 11 (—Brih. Ar. II, 4, 10; IV, 1, 2; 5, 11), rigvedo ya^nrveda^ samavedo^tharvangirasa iti- hasa^ pura/za^/z vidya upanishada/z slokak sutra/zy anuvya- khyanani vyakhyanani ; X, 5, 2, 20, adhvaryava/z (yagu/i),
1 Cf. above, p. xviii.
Introduction. Xxxv11
k/iandogak (saman), bahvrika/i (uktham), yatuvida^ (yatu), sarpavida// . . . deva^anavida^. Only a single Upanishad passage, XIV, 8, 14, 1-4 ( = Brzh. Ar. Up. V, 13, 1-4), seems to mention, or rather hint at, the Atharvan in con- nection with representatives of the trayi vidya, without mentioning other texts 1. The series is uktham, yaguk, sama, kshatram ; the passage possibly views the fourth Veda as the Veda of the Kshatriyas, or, more precisely, substitutes the act of kshatra, i. e. the performances of the kshatriya as Atharvanic by distinction. See, for this, p. xxv, above.
The Taittiriya-brahmawa mentions the Atharvan twice,
once in accordance with the method described above, at
III, 12, 8, 2, riko yagumshi samani atharva-
the hgirasa/z . . . itihasapura^am. In the other
Taitthiya- passage, III, 12, o, I, the Atharvan is men-
brahma;/a. r & ,