ARTICLE VIII.

THE ATHARVA-VEDA PRATIÇAKHYA,

OR

ÇÂUNAKÎYÂ CATURÂDHYÂYIKÂ:

TEXT, TRANSLATION, AND NOTES.

BY WILLIAM D. WHITNEY,

PROFESSOR OF SANSKRIT IN YALE COLLEGE.

Presented to the Society May 21st, 1862.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE.

THE distinctive title of the work here published is Çâunakiyâ caturadhyayika, 'Çaunaka's Treatise in Four Chapters.' We have for it, however, only the authority 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 (pâda) of the first chapter (adhyaya), it is styled caturâdhyâyika, as also at the close of the first chapter. With this accords, farther, the name, caturâdhyâyî-bhâshya, 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 Çaunaka, are found only in the final signature, which reads as follows (unamended): iti çâunakiyamcaturâdhyayike caturthaḥ pâdah: caturâdhyâyibhâskya samaptak.* 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 Prâtiçâkhya to a text of the Atharva-Veda. That it has any inherent right to be called the Prâtiçâkhya 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 ever be brought to light, the title of Atharva-Veda Prâtiçâkhya finds a sufficient justification in its convenience, and in its analogy with the names given to the

* Weber (Cat. Berl. MSS., p. 87; Ind. Literaturgeschichte, p. 146) calls the treatise caturadhyayiká; and Müller (Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 139, etc.) styles it câturadhyayika-each by a different emendation of the name given in the manuscript: I do not see the necessity of departing from the authority of the latter.

other kindred treatises by their respective editors, Regnier, Weber, and Müller.* Any special investigation of the questions of the authorship and date of our treatise, its relation to the other Prâtiçâkhyas 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 Prâtiçâkhya, differing from any of them not more than they differ from one 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 Prâtiçâkhya, a commentary upon it, by an author not named, which styles itself simply caturâdhyayi-bhashya, 'Commentary to the Four-chaptered Treatise,' as already noticed above. It is briefly described 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): crir astu: lekhakapaṭhakayoh subham bhavatu: çricanḍikâyâi namaḥ: crirâmaḥ samvat 1714 varshe jyaishthaguddha 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 Prâtiçâkhya 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 inexcusable. 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 searching for the work: but entirely without success; while he collected for me a mass of valuable materials respecting

* Prâtiçâkhya du Rig-Véda. Par M. Ad. Regnier, etc. Published in the Journal Asiatique, Ve série, Tomes vii-xii, Paris, 1856-58.-Das Vâjasaneyi-Prâtiçâkhyam. Published by Prof. Albrecht Weber, in his Indische Studien, Vol. iv, Berlin, 1858.Müller's edition of the Rig-Veda Prâtiçâkhya includes only the first six chapters. one third of the whole, and forms part of his text edition of the Rig-Veda itself, which also remains a fragment.

In

the other Prâtiçâkhyas, 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 Müller-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. 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, is of no great extent or essential consequence. As concerns, again, the corruption of the readings, it is to be observed 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 here in full rule i. 7, with its commentary, beginning from the final repetition of the next preceding rule: स्पर्शाः प्रथमोत्तमा न चवर्गः। न चवर्गः पद्यो भवति । चछतकञः । न चवर्ग: प्रथमान्तानि तृती

Thus we have everywhere (unless, as is sometimes the case, a few words have dropped out from the copy) a threefold repetition of each rule, and its true form 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 Prâtiçâkhyas, 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 meagre method is followed, accordingly, little attention will be found paid to it in the notes. Nor has it seemed to me otherwise than a needless labor to notice, except in special cases, the corrupt readings of the manuscriptand this the more especially, as my distance from the original renders it impossible to test by a renewed collation the accuracy of my copy.*

Prof. Weber has had the kindness to verify for me, during the progress of publication, sundry passages, of special importance or of doubtful reading, which I took the liberty of submitting to him.

VOL. VII.

43

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 of 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 çloka, and is seemingly of the same general character with our treatise itself, or a kind of metrical Prâtiçâkhya to the Atharva-Veda; wearing, however, more the aspect of a commentary than does the metrical Prâtiçâkhya to the Rig-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 krama-pâṭha, is of an entirely different character, as will be explained at the place.

While thus but imperfectly aided by the native commentator, I have enjoyed one compensating advantage over those 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 labors. 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 Prâtiçâkhyas, giving a briefer or more detailed statement of the harmonies and discrepancies of doctrine which they contain. To the Rig-Veda Prâtiçâkhya reference is made primarily by chapter (patala) and verse (çloka),* the number of the rule cited being then also added, according to the enumeration of both Regnier and Müller; the latter (in the first six chapters only) in Roman figures, the former in Arabic. The Vâjasaneyi Prâtiçâkhya 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 Tâittirîya Prâtiçâkhya of Kârttikeya, I have to thank Prof. Hall, as above acknowledged; the excellent manuscripts of the text and of the text and commentary (tribháshyaratna) which he procured for me will be made, I trust, to help the publication of that

* In the first chapter, of which the verses are numbered differently by Müller and Regnier, the former counting in the ten prefixed introductory verses, the referance is according to Regnier: to find the corresponding verse in Müller, add ten to the number given.

treatise in the course of the next year, either by myself or by some one else. The mode of reference to the Tâittiriya Prâtiçâkhya which has hitherto been usual I have abandoned. The work is divided into twenty-four chapters (adhyaya), which are classed together in two sections (praçna), 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 praçna division is of as little account as the corresponding division of the Rik Prâtiçâkhya into three sections (adhyâya); and there appears to be no good reason why this treatise should not be cited, like those pertaining to the Rik, the White Yajus, and the Atharvan, by chapter and rule simply; as I have done. To Pânini's grammar (in Böhtlingk'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 whereof Pânini 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 Pânini and the Prâtiçâkhyas, 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. 64, 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." (âdi) which is to be filled out elsewhere-or the familiarly known gana-method of Pânini-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 Prâtiçâkhya, 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 Prâtiçâkhya 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 Rig-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.

* Atharva-Veda Sanhitâ, herausgegeben von R. Roth und W. D. Whitney. Erster Band. Text. Berlin, 1856. roy. 8vo.