________________
INTRODUCTION.
xlv
were composed; though, it is true, they do not as a rule appear in the Kâtîya-sûtra, and no other sûtra of the White Yagus, as far as I know, has hitherto come to light1. On the other hand, as there are also not a few mantras in the Mâdhyandina Samhitâ, which are not noticed in the Brahmana of that school, this question must be left for future investigation.
I have already referred to the connection which seems to have existed between the Kânva school of the White Yagus and the redactors of the Rik-samhitâ. One of the chief points of contact between our existing recension of the Rik and the Kânva text of the Yagur-veda is the use of the letters and lh instead of d and dh used by the Mâdhyandinas. Besides, the riks of the Kanva text generally approach more nearly to the readings of the Rig-veda than those of the other school. Another, even more interesting, feature which the Kânva recension has in common with the Rik, is the constant employment of the ordinary genitive and ablative of feminine bases, where the other Samhitâs and Brahmanas generally use the dative; thus the Kanvas read 'tasyâh' instead of 'tasyai' (M. I, 1, 4, 16); 'gâyatryâh' instead of 'gâyatryai' (I, 7, 1, 1); 'prithivyâh' instead of 'prithivyai' (I, 2, 5, 18); 'kumbhyâ bhastrâyâh' instead of 'kumbhyai bhastrâyai' (I, 1, 2, 7); 'stîrnâyâ vedeh' instead of 'stîrnâyai vedeh' (IV, 2, 5, 3); 'dhenoh' instead of 'dhenvai' (III, 1, 2, 21), &c. Thus the Kânva text is in this respect more in accordance with the Rik-samhitâ than even the Aitareya-brâhmana. Again, the Kânvas seem to form the dative of feminine i-bases in accordance with the usual and older practice of the Rik; at least I find everywhere 'âhutaye' and 'guptaye' (as also in the Atharvan) instead of 'âhutyai' and 'guptyai' as the Madhyandinas (and Taittirîyas) read". Of minor points of grammatical
1 Professor Weber thinks that the sûtra of Vaigavâpa, of which mention is occasionally made in the commentaries on the Kâtîya-sûtra, may belong to the White Yagus. See History of Indian Literature, p. 142. Professor Bühler, Sacred Laws, I, p. xxvi, remarks that 'Kânva is considered the author of the still existing Kalpa-sûtras of the Kânva school;' but I have found no notice of these sutras anywhere.
That is, in those adhyâyas to which the Brâhmana forms a running commentary.
'I have not met with any exception in the kândas hitherto examined. * See Aufrecht, Ait. Br. p. 428. See also the form dhenoh' mentioned above.
Digitized by Google