Thus even the small number of fourteen hemistichs is enough to give us seven of the eight existing combinations, and no single one occurs at all often enough to allow us to call it predominant. Or we may take the saying that accompanies the performance of the medhājanana on the new-born child. In the version of Āśvalāyana {GL_NOTE::} 2 we have: m to deva h Savitâ medhâ m to A s vinau devau." src="http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe30/img/_01307.jpg" /> In the version adopted in the school of Gobhila {GL_NOTE::} 3 the context of the first line is different, but the metre is the same: m to Mitrâvaru n au." src="http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe30/img/_01400.jpg" /> Or the saying with which the pupil (brahmacārin) has to lay a log of wood on the fire of the teacher {GL_NOTE::} 1 : tayâ tvam Agne vardhasva." src="http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe30/img/_01401.jpg" /> There would be no object in multiplying the number of examples; those here given are sufficient to prove our proposition, that the development of the Gṛhya rites in the form in which they are described to us in the Sūtras, that especially their being accompanied with verses, which were to be recited by their performance, is later than the time of the oldest Vedic poetry, and coincides rather with the transition period in the development of the Anuṣṭubh metre, a period which lies between the old Vedic and the later Buddhistic and epic form. Besides the formulae intended to be recited during the performance of the various sacred acts, the Gṛhya-sūtras contain a second kind of verses, which differ essentially from the first kind in regard to metre; viz. verses of ritualistic character, which are inserted here and there between the prose Sūtras, and of which the subject-matter is similar to that of the surrounding prose. We shall have to consider these yajñagāthās, as they are occasionally called, later; at present let us go on looking for traces of the Gṛhya ritual and for the origin of Gṛhya literature in the literature which precedes the Sūtras. The Brāhmaṇa texts, which, as a whole, have for their subject-matter the Vaitānika ceremonies celebrated with the three holy fires, furnish evidence that the Gṛhya fire, together with the holy acts accomplished in connection with it, were also already known. The Aitareya-Brāhmaṇa {GL_NOTE::} 2 gives this fire the most usual name, the same name which is used for it in the Sūtras, gṛhya agni, and describes a ceremony to be performed over this fire with expressions which agree exactly with the style of the Gṛhya-sūtras {GL_NOTE::} 1 . We often find in the Brāhmaṇa texts also mention of the terminus technicus, which the Gṛhya-sūtras use many times as a comprehensive term for the offerings connected with Gṛhya ritual, the word pākayajña {GL_NOTE::} 2 . For instance, the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa {GL_NOTE::} 3 , in order to designate the whole body of offerings, uses the expression: all offerings, those that are Pākayajñas and the others. It is especially common to find the Pākayajñas mentioned in the Brāhmaṇa texts in connection with the myth of Manu. The Taittirīya Saṃhitā {GL_NOTE::} 4 opposes the whole body of sacrifices to the Pākayajñas. The former belonged to the gods, who through it attained to the heavenly world; the latter concerned Manu: thus the goddess Iḍā turned to him. Similar remarks, bringing Manu or the goddess Iḍā into relation with the Pākayajñas, are to be found Taittirīya Saṃhitā VI, 2, 5, 4; Aitareya-Brāhmaṇa III, 40, 2. However, in this case as in many others, the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa contains the most detailed data, from which we see how the idea of Manu as the performer of Pākayajñas is connected with the history of the great deluge, out of which Manu alone was left. We read in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa {GL_NOTE::} 5 : 'Now the flood had carried away all these creatures, and thus Manu was left there alone. Then Manu went about singing praises and toiling, wishing for offspring. And he sacrificed there also with a Pāka-sacrifice. He poured clarified butter, thickened milk, whey, and curds in the water as a libation.' It is then told how the goddess Iḍā arose out of this offering. I presume that the story of the Pākayajña as the first offering made by Manu after the great flood, stands in a certain correlation to the idea of the introduction of the three sacrificial fires through Purūravas {GL_NOTE::} 1 . Purūravas is the son of Iḍā; the original man Manu, who brings forth Iḍā through his offering, cannot have made use of a form of offering which presupposes the existence of Iḍā, and which moreover is based on the triad of the sacred fires introduced by Purūravas; hence Manu's offering must have been a Pākayajña; we read in one of the Gṛhya-sūtras {GL_NOTE::} 2 : 'All Pākayajñas are performed without Iḍā.' There are still other passages in the Brāhmaṇa texts showing that the Gṛhya offerings were already known; I will mention a saying of Yājñavalkya's reported in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa {GL_NOTE::} 3 : he would not allow that the daily morning and evening offering was a common offering, but said that, in a certain measure, it was a Pākayajña. Finally I would call attention to the offering prescribed in the last book of the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa {GL_NOTE::} 4 for the man 'who wishes that a learned son should be born to him;' it is there stated that the preparation of the Ājya (clarified butter) should be performed 'according to the rule of the Sthālīpāka (pot-boiling),' and the way in which the offering is to be performed is described by means of an expression, upaghātam {GL_NOTE::} 1 , which often occurs in the Gṛhya literature in a technical sense. We thus see that the Brāhmaṇa books are acquainted with the Gṛhya fire, and know about the Gṛhya offerings and their permanent technical peculiarities; and it is not merely the later portions of the Brāhmaṇa works such as the fourteenth book of the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, in which we meet with evidence of this kind; we find it also in portions against the antiquity of which no objections can be raised. While therefore on the one hand the Brāhmaṇa texts prove the existence of the Gṛhya ceremonial, we see on the other hand, and first of all by means of the Brāhmaṇa texts themselves, that a literary treatment of this ritualistic subject-matter, as we find it in the Brāhmaṇas themselves with regard to the Śrauta offerings, cannot then have existed. If there had existed texts, similar to the Brāhmaṇa texts preserved to us, which treated of the Gṛhya ritual, then, even supposing the texts themselves had disappeared, we should still necessarily find traces of them in the Brāhmaṇas and Sūtras. He who will take the trouble to collect in the Brāhmaṇa texts the scattered references to the then existing literature, will be astonished at the great mass of notices of this kind that are preserved: but nowhere do we find traces of Gṛhya Brāhmaṇas. And besides, if such works had ever existed, we should be at a loss to understand the difference which the Hindus make between the Śrauta-sūtras based on Śruti (revelation), and the Gṛhya-sūtras resting on Smṛti (tradition) alone {GL_NOTE::} 2 . The sacred Gṛhya acts are regarded as 'smārta,' and when the question is raised with what right they can be considered as a duty resting on the sacrificer alongside of the Śrauta acts, the answer is given that they too are based on a Śākhā of the Veda, but that this Śākhā is hidden, so that its existence can only be demonstrated by reasoning {GL_NOTE::} 1 . But the Brāhmaṇa texts furnish us still in another way the most decisive arguments to prove that there have been no expositions of the Gṛhya ritual in Brāhmaṇa form: they contain exceptionally and scattered through their mass sections, in which they treat of subjects which according to later custom would have been treated in the Gṛhya-sūtras. Precisely this sporadic appearance of Gṛhya chapters in the midst of expositions of a totally different contents leads us to draw the conclusion that literary compositions did not then exist, in which these chapters would have occupied their proper place as integral parts of a whole. Discussions of questions of Gṛhya ritual are found in the Brāhmaṇa literature, naturally enough in those appendices of various kinds which generally follow the exposition of the principal subject of the Śrauta ritual. Accordingly we find in the eleventh book of the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa {GL_NOTE::} 2 , among the manifold additions to subjects previously treated, which make up the principal contents of this book {GL_NOTE::} 3 , an exposition of the Upanayana, i.e. the solemn reception of the pupil by the teacher, who is to teach him the Veda. The way in which the chapter on the Upanayana is joined to the preceding one, is eminently characteristic; it shows that it is the merest accident which has brought about in that place the discussion of a subject connected with the Gṛhya ritual, and that a ceremony such as the Upanayana is properly not in its proper place in the midst of the literature of Brāhmaṇa texts. A dialogue (brahmodya) between Uddālaka and Śauceya precedes; the two talk of the Agnihotra and of various expiations (prāyaścitta) connected with that sacrifice. At the end Śauceya, filled with astonishment at the wisdom of Uddālaka, declares that he wishes to come to him as a pupil (upāyāni bhagavantam), and Uddālaka accepts him as his pupil. It is the telling of this story and the decisive words upāyāni and upaninye which furnish the occasion for introducing the following section on the Upanayana {GL_NOTE::} 1 . The subject is there treated in the peculiar style of the Brāhmaṇa texts, a style which we need not characterize here. I shall only mention one point, viz. that into the description and explanation of the Upanayana ceremony has been inserted one of those Ślokas, such as we often find in the Gṛhya-sūtras also, as a sort of ornamental amplification of the prose exposition {GL_NOTE::} 2 . 'Here a Śloka is also sung,' says the Brāhmaṇa {GL_NOTE::} 3 : ācāryo garbhī bhavati hastam ādhāya dakṣiṇam