836 On the History and Literature of the Veda. [Aug, 



that these texts at an ancient time were already perfectly authenticated, 

 arranged and divided. None dared to alter them ; additions were ven- 

 tured at only between the divisions. The Anukramanika, perhaps from 

 time immemorial, protected the original text from coalescing with the 

 additions of a later period. Although I am not as yet able to prove 

 that Yaska knew this index to the Veda, yet I have not found any 

 evidence to the contrary, and I do not hesitate to consider it more 

 ancient than the Nirukta. 



It has been before incidentally mentioned, that the Ashtaka division 

 goes along with the Anukramanika. As far as I know, they differ in 

 a single instance only, — viz. the fourth Adhyaya of the 6th Ashtaka, 

 as it now is found in the MSS., gives 54 Vargas, although it should 

 according to the rule have only 30 to 35. Here then must be some- 

 thing superfluous, which does not originally belong to the Ashtaka 

 division. Which part is superadded, we may perceive for instance 

 from Sayana's commentary, which agreeably to the other division, 

 closes the 6th Anuvaka with the 15th Varga, and commences the 7th 

 with the 32 (of the MSS., according to him the 14th.) The Vargas 14 

 to 31 (of the MSS.) do therefore not originally belong to the Ash- 

 taka division. The Anukramanika, on the other hand, enumerates 

 them and gives also the names of their authors. They accordingly 

 appear to have been included in the Mandala-division. To explain 

 this deviation, it might be either supposed, that the enumeration 

 of these 18 Vargas in the Anukramanika is spurious, which would 

 be supported by the omission of the whole passage in the com- 

 mentary of Shadgurusishya to the Anukramanika (according to two 

 MSS. 1832 or 2396, E. J. H.) or it might be supposed, that at a 

 later period these 18 Vargas were considered an independent section, 

 consonant to itself, which might be separated from the collection of 

 the hymns of the Rig. To this view refers the circumstance, that 

 this passage, for instance in MS. 131, E. J. H., has the separate 

 title Valakhilyam, (and it concludes with Valakhylyan samaptam) and 

 the statement of Sayana in his commentary to the Aitareya Brahmana 

 VI. 28 (where also, c. 24, a fabulous derivation of the word is given) 

 Valakhilyakhyair munibhir drishta " abhi praityadike 'shtake sthita 

 richo Valakhilyabhidha : I ta eva valakhilyakhye granthe samamnata : I 

 ta: sarva Maitravaruna : sanset" (MS. 1836 E. J. C") 



