TRACING VEDIC DIALECTS - People.fas.harvard.edu
TRACING VEDIC DIALECTS - People.fas.harvard.edu
TRACING VEDIC DIALECTS - People.fas.harvard.edu
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
elonging to the Ṛgveda, and why only later otherwise, in BŚŚ, etc.? Is<br />
the final redaction even of AB 1-5 so late? Was the text revised in the<br />
East, by Śākalya or his school, during t(e late Br. period?<br />
While deliberating on such questions, a circular argument has, of<br />
course, to be avoided. The only way to do so with the still limited<br />
materials at hand, is, in my opinion, to take into account as many factors<br />
concerning a particular text or śākhā as possible: that means, such<br />
features of a particular text as its (absolute and relative) time of<br />
composition, collection or redaction, its geographical location, its levels of<br />
text composition, its position in the development of the Vedic language,<br />
school peculiarities, special features belonging to a particular Veda, etc.<br />
These peculiarities have to be evaluated while not losing sight of the<br />
feature under discussion. I hope to have shown in the preceding chapters<br />
that the facts gleaned from the various Vedic texts tend to support and to<br />
complement each other rather than to conflict with each other; they form<br />
a consistent pattern of dialectal divergencies which slowly spread, from<br />
various centres of innovation viz. (secondary) diffusion, over the lenghth<br />
and breadth of Northern India.<br />
If we take a look at some of the major cases of an uneven diffusion of<br />
dialect features, - either attested only in part of the area of a particular<br />
dialect, or more interestingly, in the various schools of o n e Veda, - it<br />
will be seen that no single answer can be given for this phenomenon.<br />
Most cases, however, fall under the two categories of diachronic<br />
development viz. the influence of areal features; sometimes the still<br />
uncertain attribution of a text or of its final redaction to a certain area<br />
creates difficulties (as in the case of PB).<br />
(a) diachronic development:<br />
* The uneven distribution of the narrative impf./perf. in the Pañcāla<br />
area (§5.2, cf. ann. 117): A late text like TA uses (outside the Kaṭha<br />
chapters) the imperfect while KB uses the perf. On the other hand, the<br />
late Anubrāhmaṇa of the Taitt., VādhB, has both impf. and perf. The<br />
reason for this distribution is the intentionally conservative nature of the<br />
Taitt. school (cf. suvar!). Especially, TA tends to copy older parts of TS<br />
(such as a whole section in TA 5 dealing with the Pravargya but copied<br />
from a Soma chapter of TS). Note, however, that the Pravargya chapters<br />
(TA 4-5) are not necessarily very young but have been set aside, into the<br />
Ar., as they deal with a secret and dangerous ritual (cf. KathA, ŚBM<br />
14,1-3). The case of PB has been discussed above; the text must be based<br />
122