* yam 4fgirasakalpais tu tadvido s bhifaranti sa pratyahgirasakalpena sarvams tan pratibadhate. Cf also the following slokas, and IV, 8, 3; Ath. Paris. 3, 1; and see Rudolf Meyer’s preface to his edition of the Rig-vidhana, p. xxxi.
* Sayana, nivaryate parakritabhifaraganita kritya anena iti pratyabhika-
ranah.
b2
XX HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
word angirasa the fact that the Vishvzu-puraza (Wilson's translation, V, 383) and the Bhavishya-puravza count the Angirasa as one of the four Vedas of the Parsis (Maga), the other three, Vada, Visvavada, and Vidut, also conveying thinly veiled disparagement of the religious books of an exotic religion; cf. Wilson in Reinaud’s Mémoire sur I’'Inde, p. 394; Ind. Stud. I, 292, note; Weber, Ind. Lit.’, p. 164, note.
We may then regard it as certain that the words angiras and angirasa are reflected by the ceremonial literature in the sense of abhifadra and abhifarika. Far more important is the evidence of certain texts of greater antiquity, and higher dignity, which have occasion to mention the Atharvan inci- dentally, and enunciate clearly this twofold character of the Veda. They make the very same distinction between atharvan and angiras that appeared above in the ritualistic passage, Vait. Sf. 5,10 (Gop. Br. I, 2, 18). At Sankh. Sr. XVI, 2, 1 ff., on the occasion of the horse-sacrifice, recita- tions are made from the ordinary Vedic classes of literature, the rzkak, yagdmshi, simani, and also the remoter literary categories which the Brahmavas and Sitras report, with great unanimity and considerable variety, as having been in existence in their time: the itihdsa (akhyana), puraza, sarpavidya, &c.! The Atharvan figures immediately after the Azk and Saman, and that too twice, in its double character as Atharvan and Angiras, and, what is more im- portant, bheshagam, i.e. remedial charms, are recited from the Atharvan; ghoram, i.e. sorcery, Abhifarikam, from the Angiras*. The commentator regards bheshagam and ghoram as distinct works, bheshagagranthasy4 stharvazi- kanam ...ghoram atharvavo granthaz. The same subject is treated in almost identical terms in Asv. Sr. X, 7, 1 ff.: again atharvavo veda and angiraso veda“ are treated indi- vidually, and again the former is correlated with bheshagam, the latter with ghoram *. Once more this theme is handled
' Cf. Max Miiller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 40 ff.
* atharvavedo vedah sosyam iti bheshagam nigadet . . . dagiraso vedo vedahk sosyam iti ghoram nigadet.
’ Scholiast, ghoram iti abhi#aradipratipadakam ity arthaz. Cf. RV. X, 34, 14, m&# no ghoréwa Aaraté s bhi dhrzshau,
INTRODUCTION. Xx1
by the Sat. Br. XIII, 4, 3, 3 ff.: here also atharvan and angiras are recognised individually; the correlation with bheshagam and ghoram is wanting, but the individuality of the two categories is clearly implied in the behest to recite on the third and fourth days respectively one section each of the Atharvans and the Angiras, each of which are distinctly said to be a Veda’.
Indirect, yet significant testimony that this double character of the AV. was clearly established in Brahman- ical times may be derived from the formation of the names of two apocryphal teachers. One is Bhishag Atharvama, Kazh. S. XVI, 3 (Ind. Stud. III, 459); the other is Ghora Angirasa, Kaush. Br. XX X,6; Asv. Sr. XII, 13,1; KAand. Up. III, 17, 6 (cf. Ind. Stud. I, 190, 293). The formation Bhishag Atharvava is illustrated further by Pa#é. Br. XII, 9, 10, bheshagas va atharvavani; and XVI, 10, 10, bhesha- gam vai devanam atharvavo bheshagydyaisvasrishtyai?; cf. also the expressions samyu atharvava, personified as a sage, Gop. Br. I, 2,18, and atharvabhiz santa, Kaus. 125, 2°. These names never, as far as is known, occur in inverted order : there is no Bhishag Angirasa, and no Ghora Atharvava; they reflect perfectly the individual character and the individual function of the two members of the compound atharvangirasah.
It seems now, further, that the texts of the Atharva-
SS Rad samhita mark this same distinction with no
aigiras in uncertain touch. At AV. XI, 6, 14, four
woot aoe Vedic mantra-categories are indicated by the
' expressions, r#kah, simani, bheshaga(ni), and
yagimshi. The choice of the word bheshaga is certainly
eclectic and one-sided. The passage appeals to the auspi-
! atharvazo vedahk ... atharvaszim ekam parva vyasakshanah; angiraso vedahk ... ahgirasim ekam parva vyazakshamah. Elsewhere, aside from the Atharvan texts, the component parts of the dvandva atharvangiras are drawn asunder, but without accessory statements; thus Tait. Br. III, 12, 9, 1; Nrisigthapiirvatapani Up. 5, 9.
2 A converse statement like bheshagam v4 4igirasini, is, if we judge the matter aright, a counter-sense, and unheard of anywhere in Hindu literature.
* So also Santi, as the wife of Atharvan; see Wilson's translation of the Vishwa-purana, 1, 110, 200; Bhagavata-purava III, 24, 24.
XX HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
cious side of the holy texts, and naturally chooses the auspicious. aspect of the Atharvan also. Its: precise com- plement is Sat. Br. X, 5, 2, 20. Here, after correlating the adhvaryu-priests with the. yagu%, the £Aandoga-priests with the sdman, the bahvvzkas with the uktha (rzk), the author presents yatu, ‘sorcery, and the yatuvidad, ‘ those skilled in sorcery, as representatives of the fourth Veda. The bheshaga of the Atharvan passage,and the yatu of the present passage, make up together what is embraced in the name atharvangirasaz (AV. X, 7,20). Moreover, the Sam- hita exhibits a decided predilection, bordering on rigorous distinction, for associating the term Angirasa with aggressive witchcraft, or the practice of spells (kvztya). Thus VIII, 5, 9, kritya angirasiz; X, 1, 6, prati#ina angirasa# . .. pra- ttkiz kritya Akrityasm(in krityakrv7to gahi; XII, 5, 52, Adaddanam Angirasi brahmagyam upa dasaya; cf. also VI, 45, 32 RV. X, 164-4. Ine XI, 4,16 (cf, also. VIUL7, 29) the distinction between Atharvanic and Angirasic plants appears again, not, however, in any connection which con- veys of necessity the contrast between ‘holy’ and ‘ witch- craft’ plants. But it may do so. This, it will be remem- bered, is made in Vait. Si. 5,10; it formed the starting point for the present enquiry, and the chain of evidence extending through the Atharvanic and Brahmanical litera- ture seems thus to be linked. We may add finally that the late Parisishta hymns, AV. XIX, 22 and 23, which are repeated in the tract entitled Vedavratasya=desanavidhi, Ath. Paris. 46, 9 and 10, deal with and state subdivisions of angirasa and atharvava-texts, each separately!. The statements are but faintly applicable to the existing redac- tions of the Atharvan, the Saunakiya, and Paippalada- sakhas *, but we should be slow to condemn them as wholly apocryphal. The Gop. Br. I, 1, 5 and 8 also narrates in its own style of unbridled Brahmanical fancy the separate creation by Brahman of the Azshis Atharvan and Angiras,
* angirasdndm Adyaih pa#kanuvakaih svaha (XIX, 22, 1); sarvebhyo shgirobhyo vidagazébhyah sydha (XIX, 22, 18) ; AtharvaaXnasn katurrzkébhyak svdha (XIX, 23, 1).
2 Cf. Weber, Ind. Stud. IV, 433 ff.
INTRODUCTION. XXill
the subsequent emanation from these two of twenty Athar-
vanic and Angirasic descendant sages !, and finally, the pro-
duction by the Atharvans of the atharvaza veda, by the
Angiras of angirasa veda.
In another passage, I, 3, 4, the Gop. Br. also asserts the separate character of the Angiras and Atharvans; the latter are again associated with bheshagam, the former is made the base of a foolish etymology, to wit: bhiyishtZam brahma yad bhrzgvangirasah#, yesngiraso yesngiraso sa rasak, yestharvazo yestharvazas tad bheshagam.
As regards the chronology and cause of this differentia-
tion of atharvan and angiras the texts are Cause of the : Seriya differentiation apparently wholly silent. The association of of atharvan both names (and later of the name bhvzgu and angiras. 3 ; also) with the texts and practices of the fourth Veda may be sought in the character of these mythic beings. They are fire-priests, fire-churners*, and the Atharvanic rites, as well as the house-ceremonies in general, centre about the fire, the oblations are into the fire. Fire-priests, in distinction from soma-priests, may have had in their keeping these homelier practices of common life. But whence the terrible aspect of the An- giras in contrast to the auspicious Atharvans? In the hymn about Sarama and the Pamis, RV. X, 108, 10, Sarama threatens the Pais with the terrible Angiras, angirasas ka ghorak. This statement, wholly incidental as it seems to be, is, of course, not to be entirely discarded. More im- portant is the fact that Brzhaspati, the divine purodha (purohita), is distinctly angirasa. In Kaus. 135, 9, Brzhas- pati Angirasa appears distinctly as the representative, or the divinity of witchcraft performances. In the Mahabha- rata he is frequently called angirasam sreshthah. In his function of body-priest of the gods it behoves him to
* Doubtless by way of allusion to the twenty books in the existing redaction of the Saunakiya-sakha. The expression vimsinoxhgirasah is repeated Pan. V, 2, 37, as a designation of the twenty books of the Saunakiya-sakha in its present redaction.
* Avestan Atar-, athra-van and Vedic athar-van may be derivatives from the root manth, math (mth) ‘churn.’ But the absence of the aspiration in Atar- makes the doubtful derivation still more doubtful.
XXIV HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
exercise against hostile powers those fierce qualities which are later in a broader sense regarded as Angirasic. Thus RV. X, 164, 4 = AV. VI, 45, 3}, certainly exhibits this function of the divine purohita, and the composer of AV. X, i, 6, when he exclaims, ‘ Prati#ina (“ Back-hurler’’) the descendant of Angiras, is our overseer and officiator (puro- hita): do thou drive back again (prati#iz) the spells, and slay yonder fashioners of the spells,’ has also in mind the divine purohita*. The stanza foreshadows the later forma- tion pratyangiras, discussed above. We look in vain, how- ever, for statements of the reason why the word atharvan should be especially associated with santa and bheshaga, and must assume that this was accomplished by secondarily contrasting it with angiras after the sense of ghora, abhifdara had incrustated itself over it®. The uncertainty of all this does not endanger the result that at a comparatively early time the terms atharvavah, in the sense of ‘holy charms, and angirasa#, in the sense of ‘witchcraft charms, joined the more distinctively hieratic terms ~zkak, yagtmshi, and samani, as characteristic types of Brahmanical literary performances. But this distinction was at a later period again abandoned; in the end the name atharvan and its derivatives prevail as designations of the practices and charms of the fourth Veda without reference to their strongly diversified character.
The stem atharvan is modulated in a considerable variety of ways by derivative processes, the simple stem itself, or forms in the singular from it, being decidedly rare, and not at all early. I have noted Nvrzsimhapirvatapani Up. I, 4, rigyagudsamatharvartipaz siryaz. Plural forms are less rare: atharvazo veda, Sat. Br. XIII, 4, 3, 7; atharvavam,
} yad indra braltmasas patesbhidroham karamasi, praketé na Angirasd dvishat&m patv amhasah.
? RV. IV, 50, 7-9 prescribes that kings shall keep in honour (subhzztam) a brihaspati, i. e. a Brahman purohita, in archaic language whose sense coincides completely with the later Atharvanic notions. Barring the diction the passage might stand in any Atharva-Parisish/a; cf. below, p. lxviii, note.
* A dash of popular etymology may have helped the process: a-tharvan, ‘not injuring ;” cf. thurv in the sense of ‘injure,’ Dhatupa¢ka XV, 62, and perhaps Maitr. S. 1I, 10,1; also the roots tfirv and dhfiry with similar meanings.
Introduction, Xxv
* Cf. also Prasna Up. 11, 6, where brahma and kshatra figure. Both together represent in the epics the best outcome of the life of a kshatriya, ‘ piety ’ and ‘prowess.’ It is possible to conceive the appearance of kshatra alone as an eiliptic version of both brahma and kshatra, the two together being the ont- come ofthe tray! preceding, rather than a supplementary statement of additional Verlic types of composition ; cf. Prasna Up. II,6, For brahma alone, see below, p. xxxi, note.
XXVI HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
his purohita) as Atharvanic by distinction. Recently Pro-
fessor Weber! has emphasised the marked relation of the
Atharvan to the royal caste.
The text of the Samhita abounds in ragakarmazi, ‘ royal practices,’ and Weber thinks that the name of Kausika, the author of the great Atharvan Stra, points to a Kshatriya connection, since Kusika is identical with Visvamitra, and the latter, as is well known, stands forth among the ancient Vedic heroes as the representative of royalty. None of these points can be regarded as more than possibilities ”.
Two other designations of the AV. differ from all the
preceding in that they are the product of a later Athar-
vanic literary age, neither of them being found in the
Samhita, and both being almost wholly restricted to the
ritual text of the Atharvan itself. They are the terms
bhvzgvangirasaZ and brahma-veda.