This is the Atharvan, or fire-and witch-craft of to-day—­not differing much from the ancient.  It is the unchanging foundation of the many lofty buildings of faith that are erected, removed, and rebuilt upon it—­the belief in the supernatural at its lowest, a belief which, in its higher stages, is always level with the general intellect of those that abide in it.

The latest book of the Atharvan is especially for the warrior-caste, but the mass of it is for the folk at large.  It was long before it was recognized as a legitimate Veda.  It never stands, in the older period of Brahmanism, on a par with the S[=a]man and Rik.  In the epic period good and bad magic are carefully differentiated, and even to-day the Atharvan is repudiated by southern Br[=a]hmans.  But there is no doubt that sub rosa, the silliest practices inculcated and formulated in the Atharvan were the stronghold of a certain class of priests, or that such priests were feared and employed by the laity, openly by the low classes, secretly by the intelligent.

In respect of the name the magical cult was referred, historically with justice, to the fire-priests, Atharvan and Angiras, though little application to fire, other than in soma-worship, is apparent.  Yet was this undoubtedly the source of the cult (the fire-cult is still distinctly associated with the Atharva Veda in the epic), and the name is due neither to accident nor to a desire to invoke the names of great seers, as will Weber.[11] The other name of Brahmaveda may have connection with the ‘false science of Brihaspati,’ alluded to in a Upanishad.[12] This seer is not over-orthodox, and later he is the patron of the unorthodox C[=a]rv[=a]kas.  It was seen above that the god Brihaspati is also a novelty not altogether relished by the Vedic Aryans.

From an Aryan point of view how much weight is to be placed on comparisons of the formulae in the Atharvan of India with those of other Aryan nations?  Kuhn has compared[13] an old German magic formula of healing with one in the Atharvan, and because each says ’limb to limb’ he thinks that they are of the same origin, particularly since the formula is found in Russian.  The comparison is interesting, but it is far from convincing.  Such formulae spring up independently all over the earth.

Finally, it is to be observed that in this Veda first occurs the implication of the story of the flood (xix. 39. 8), and the saving of Father Manu, who, however, is known by this title in the Rik.  The supposition that the story of the flood is derived from Babylon, seems, therefore, to be an unnecessary (although a permissible) hypothesis, as the tale is old enough in India to warrant a belief in its indigenous origin.[14]

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES: 

     [Footnote 1:  XV. 15.]

     [Footnote 2:  X. 2.]

     [Footnote 3:  VII. 69.  Compare RV.  VII. 35, and the epic
     (below).]