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 final revision of the text, and the carrying of it through 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 places. In so treating such a text, it is not easy to hit the precise mean between 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 Prâtiçâkhya, 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 margin of the edited text, in books xix and xx): 1st, sanhita MSS.: "B." 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.2" 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 Rik pada-text.

The mode of transcription of Sanskrit words is the same with that which has been hitherto followed in this Journal.

ATHARVA-VEDA PRATICAKHYA.

CHAPTER I.

CONTENTS:-SECTION I. 1-2, introductory, scope of the treatise; 3-9, sounds which may occur as finals; 10-13, aspirates, nasals, surds, and sonants; 14-17, description of accents; 18-28, description and classification of sounds according to their place and organ of production; 29-36, do. according to the degree of approximation of the organs; 37-39, the r and vowels; 40-41, diphthongs.

SECTION II. 42, visarjaniya; 43–48, abhinidhâna; 49-50, conjunction of consonants; 51-54, quantity of syllables; 55-58, division into syllables; 59-62, quantity of vowels.

SECTION III. 63–66, abnormal alterations and interchanges of sounds; 67-72, occurrence of nasalized vowels; 73-81, pragṛhya vowels; 82, treatment in padatext of pragṛhya vowels followed by iva; 83-91, occurrence of long nasalized vowels in the interior of a word.

SECTION IV. 92, definition of upadha; 93, what makes a syllable; 94, only an unaspirated consonant allowed before an aspirated; 95, mode of application of rules respecting conversion of sounds; 96, special case of accent; 97, special cases of omission of pluti before iti; 98, conjunction of consonants; 99, yama; 100, násikya; 101-104, svarabhakti and sphoṭana and their effect; 105, cases of pluti.

चतुणीं पदजातानां नामाख्यातोपसर्गनिपातानां सन्ध्यपचौ गुणी प्रातिज्ञम् ॥ १ ॥

1. Of the four kinds of words-viz. noun, verb, preposition, and particle-the qualities exhibited in euphonic combination and in the state of disconnected vocables are here made the subject of treatment.

Here is clearly set forth the main object of such a treatise as we are accustomed to call a prâtiçâkhya: it is to establish the relations of the combined and the disjoined forms of the text to which it belongs, or of the sanhitâ-text and the pada-text: sandhyapadyâu might have been directly translated in the sanhitâ and pada texts respectively.' The ultimate end to be attained is the utterance of the sacred text (çâkhâ, 'branch' of the Veda), held and taught by the school, in precisely the form in which the school receives and teaches it. The general material of the text must, of course, be assumed to be known, before it can be made the subject of rules: it is accordingly assumed in its simplest and most material-like form, in the state of padas or separate words, each

having the form it would wear if uttered alone, compounds being also divided into their constituent parts, and many affixes and inflectional endings separated from their themes; and the Prâtiçâkhya teaches how to put together correctly this analyzed text. An essential part of such a treatise is also its analysis, description, and classification of the sounds of the spoken alphabet, as leading to correctness of utterance, and as underlying and explaining the complicated system of phonetic changes which the treatise has to inculcate. These two subjects-a theoretical system of phonetics, and the rules, general and particular, by which pada-text is converted into sanhita-are the only ones which are found to be fully treated in all the Prâtiçâkhyas; although none of the treatises confines itself to them alone. Thus, our own work gives in its fourth chapter the rules for the construction of the pada-text itself, as does also the Vâjasaneyi Prâtiçâkhya; and likewise, in the final section of that chapter (which is, however, evidently a later appendix to the work), a brief statement of the method of forming the krama-text, of which it has also taken account in more than one of the rules of its earlier portions: and the Prâtiçâkhyas of the Rik and the Vâjasaneyi have corresponding sections. Nor are the instances infrequent in which it more or less arbitrarily oversteps the limits it has marked out for itself, and deals with matters which lie properly beyond its scope, as will be pointed out in the notes. A A summary exhibition of these irregularities, and a comparative analysis of the other Prâtiçâkhyas, will be presented in an additional note.

As the Prâtiçâkhya deals with words chiefly as phonetic combinations, and not as significant parts of speech (as Wörter, 'vocables,' not Worte, words'), their grammatical character is unessential, and the distinction of the four classes made in the rule is rather gratuitous: the names of the classes do not often occur in the sequel, although our treatise is notably more free than any other of its class in availing itself of grammatical distinctions in the statement of its rules. For a fuller exhibition of the fourfold classification of words as parts of speech, see Rik Pr. xii. 5-9, and Vâj. Pr. viii. 52–57.

"words

In illustration of the term sandhya, the commentator says: that end thus and thus take such and such forms before words that

:

begin so and so." To illustrate padya, he cites rule 8, below-a by no means well-chosen example. To show how it is that the treatise has to do only with the qualities of words as exhibited in sanhitâ and pada, he cites an instance of what must be done by a general grammarian in explanation of a derivative form, as follows: sandhyapadyâv iti kim artham liḍham ity atra ho-dha-tvam: paracaturthatvam: (MS. padaca°) shtuna-shṭu-tvam dho-dhe-lopo dirghatvam iti vaiyakaranena vaktavyam: why is it said "the qualities in sanhitâ and pada"? Because the general grammarian must say, in explanation of lidha, "here applies the rule ho dhah (Pân. viii. 2. 31), that for the change of the following letter into its aspirated sonant, the rule shṭunâ shṭuḥ (Pân. viii. 4. 41), the rule dho dhe lopah (Pân. viii. 3. 13), and that for the lengthening of the vowel." These rules teach the formation of the participle lidha from the root lih, through the following series of changes: lih-ta, lidh-ta, lidh-dha, lidh-dha, li-dha, lidha; and they are for the

most part taken directly from Pânini, or at least correspond precisely with his rules; only, in the second case, paracaturthaivam takes the place of Pân. viii. 2. 40, jhashas tathor dho dhaḥ; and, in the last case, dirghatvam stands for dhralope pûrvasya dirghonah (Pân. vi. 3. 111). Whether the commentator thus deviates arbitrarily or through carelessness from the letter of the great grammarian's rules, or whether he cites from some other authority, anterior to or independent of Pânini, and with whom the latter agrees only in part, is a question of which the solution need not be attempted here: while the former supposition may appear the more probable, the other, in the present state of our knowledge respecting the relations between Pânini and the Prâtiçakhyas and their commentators, is not to be summarily rejected as impossible.

एवमिहेति च विभाषाप्राप्तं सामान्ये ॥ २ ॥

11211

2. Farther, that respecting which general grammar allows diversity of usage is made subject of treatment, to the effect of determining the usage in this çakhâ.

This is a broadly periphrastic translation of the rule, which reads mor literally: ""thus and thus it is here"-to this effect, also, that which is allowed to be diversely treated in the general language (is made the subject of the rules of the treatise).' The commentator's exposition is as follows: evam iha iti ca: asyâm çâkhâyâm tat prâtijñam manyante: yaro ́ nunâsike ́nunâsiko ve 'ti vibhâshâprâptaṁ sâmânye: kiṁ sâmâ nyam: vyakaranam: vakshyati: uttama uttameshv iti: ""thus it is here:" in these words also: i. e., in this çâkhâ they regard this as matter of precept: by the rule (Pân. viii. 4. 45) "the letters from y to s may or may not be made nasal before a nasal," a choice of usage is allowed in general grammar-sâmânya means vyâkarana, 'grammar'but the Prâtiçâkhya is going to say (ii. 5) "mutes other than nasals become nasals before nasals."" The rule is somewhat obscure and difficult of construction, and the commentary not unequivocal, substituting, as before, an illustration in place of a real exposition of its meaning, but I am persuaded that it is fairly rendered by the translation above given. Müller, having occasion to refer to it, gives it somewhat differently, as follows (p. xii): "what by the grammatical text books is left free, that is here thus and thus: so says the Prâtiçâkhya." But this leaves the ca unexplained, and supposes the iti to be in another place, making the rule to read rather evam iha vibhàshaprâptam sâmânya iti; nor does it accord with the commentator's exposition. It seems necessary, in order to account for the ca, to bring down prâtijñam as general predicate from the preceding rule; and the iti must be understood as pointing out that the Prâtiçakhya says evam iha, 'so and so is proper here,' respecting any matter which the rules of grammar leave doubtful.

The rule is properly neither an addition to, nor a limitation of, the one which precedes it, but rather a specification of a particularly important matter among those included in the other; for the Prâtiçakhya does not overstep the limits of its subject as already laid down, in order to determine points of derivation, form, etc., which general grammar

may have left unsettled; nor does it restrict itself within those limits to matters respecting which general usage is allowed to vary: it does not at all imply or base itself upon the general science of grammar and its text book, but is an independent and a complete treatise as regards its own subject.

Of which çâkha of the Atharva-Veda this work is the Prâtiçâkhya, it gives us itself no information whatever, nor does it even let us know that it belongs to the Atharvan. The name by which it is called, however, leads us to suppose that it was produced in the school of the Çâunakas, which is mentioned in the Caranavyuha among those of the Atharvan (see Weber's Indische Studien, iii. 277-8). Its relation to the only text of the Atharvan known to be now in existence will be made the subject of an additional note.

पदान्त्यः पचः ॥३॥

3. A letter capable of occurring at the end of a word is called padya.

This is simply a definition of the term padya, which, in this sense, is peculiar to the present treatise; it is not found at all in either of the Yajur Veda Prâtiçâkhyas, or in Pâṇini, and in the Rik Prâtiçâkhya it means 'member of a compound word.' The term signifies, by its etymology, belonging to a pada, or disjoined word' (in the technical sense), and it is evidently applied specifically to the last letter of such a word as being the one which is most especially affected by the resolution of sanhitâ into pada.

As instances, the commentary cites a series of four words, ending respectively in guttural, lingual, dental, and labial mutes, which he gives also repeatedly under other rules; viz. godhuk (p. go dhuk: e. g. vii. 73. 6), virât (p. vi-râț: e. g. viii. 9. 8), dṛshat (ii. 31. 1), trishṭup (p. tri-stup: e. g. viii. 9. 20).

4. Any vowel, excepting !, may occur as final.

The Rik Prâtiçâkhya treats of possible final letters in xii. 1, and excepts the long vowel, as well as 1, from their number. The latter is also excluded by the introductory verse 9 to the first chapter, as given by Müller (p. x). The Vâjasaneyi Prâtiçâkhya also pays attention to the same subject, in i. 85-89, and its rule respecting the vowels (i. 87) precisely agrees with ours. It farther specifies, however (i. 88), that r is found only at the end of the first member of a compound, which is equally true as regards the Atharvan text.

The illustrations brought forward by the commentator are brahma (e. g. i. 19. 4), çâlâ (ix. 3. 17), nîlâ (not found in AV.), dadhi (in dadhi-ván, xviii. 4. 17), kumârî (x. 8. 27), madhu (e. g. i. 34. 2), vâyû (only in indravâyû, iii. 20. 6), kartr (no such case in AV., nor any case of this word as member of a compound: take instead pitr-bhih, e. g. vi. 63. 3; pitr-lokam, xviii. 4. 64), cakshate (e. g. ix. 10. 26), asyâi (e. g. ii. 36. 1), vâyo (e. g. ii. 20. 1), tâu (e. g. iii. 24. 7).