________________
INTRODUCTION.
xlv
were composed; though, it is true, they do not as a rule appear in the Katîya-sútra, and no other sūtra of the White Yagus, as far as I know, has hitherto come to light. 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 Kanva school of the White Yagus and the redactors of the Rik-samhità. One of the chief points of contact between our existing recension of the Rik and the Kanva text of the Yagur-veda is the use of the letters l 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 Kanva recension has in common with the Rik, is the constants employment of the ordinary genitive and ablative of feminine bases, where the other Samhitas and Brâhmanas generally use the dative; thus the Kanvas read 'tasyah' instead of tasyai' (M. I, 1, 4, 16); 'gayatryåh' instead of gayatryai' (I, 7, 1, 1); 'prithivyâh' instead of 'prithivyai' (I, 2, 5, 18); "kumbhya bhastråyåh' instead of 'kumbhyai bhastrậyai' (I, 1, 2, 7); "stîrnaya vedeh' instead of 'stirnayai vedeh' (IV, 2, 5, 3); dhenok' instead of dhenvai' (III, 1, 2, 21), &c. Thus the Kanva text is in this respect more in accordance with the Rik-samhita than even the Aitareya-brâhmana 4. Again, the Kanvas 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 'dhutyai' and 'guptyai' as the Madhyandinas (and Taittirîyas) read 6. 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 Kâtfya-sûtra, may belong to the White Yagus. See History of Indian Literature, p. 142. Professor Bühler, Sacred Laws, I, P. xxvi, remarks that Kanva is considered the author of the still existing Kalpa-sútras of the Kanva school;' but I have found no notice of these stras anywhere.
That is, in those adhyâyas to which the Brahmana 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
