277:7 The Váyu supplies the detail. Mańd́ukeya, or, as one copy writes, Márkańd́eya, taught the Sanhitá to his son Satyaśravas; he to his son Satyahita; and he to his son Satyaśrí. The latter had three pupils, Śákalya, also called Devamitra (sic in MS.), Rathántara, and another Báshkali, called also Bharadwája. The Váyu has a legend of Śákalya's death, in consequence of his being defeated by Yájnavalkya in a disputation at a sacrifice celebrated by Janaka.

277:8 These names in the Váyu are Mudgala, Golaka, Kháliya, Mátsya, Śaiśireya.

277:9 The commentator, who is here followed by Mr. Colebrooke, states that he was a pupil of Indrapramati; but from the Váyu it appears that Śákapúrńi was another name of Rathántara, the pupil of Satyaśrí, the author of three Sanhitás and a Nirukta, or glossary; whence Mr. Colebrooke supposes him the same with Yáska. As. Res. VIII. 375. It is highly probable that the text of the Váyu may be made to correct that of the Vishńu in this place, which is inaccurate, notwithstanding the copies agree: they read, ###. p. 278 Here Śákapúrńir-atha-itaram is the necessary construction; but quere if it should not be Śákapúrńi Rathántara. The parallel passage in the Váyu is, ###. Now in describing the pupils of Satyaśrí, Rathántara was named clearly enough: ###. In another passage it would seem to be implied that this Báshkali was the author of the Sanhitás, and Rathántara of the Nirukta only: ###. However this may be, his being the author of the Nirukta identifies him with Śákapúrńi, and makes it likely that the two names should come in juxta-position in our text, as well as in the Váyu. It must be admitted, however, that there are some rather inexplicable repetitions in the part of the Váyu where this account occurs, although two copies agree in the reading. That a portion of the Vedas goes by the name of Rathantara we have seen (p. 42); but as far as is yet known, the name is confined to different prayers or hymns of the Uhya Gána of the Sáma-veda. The text of the Vishńu also admits of a different explanation regarding the work of Śákapúrńi, and instead of a threefold division of the original, the passage may mean that he composed a third Sanhitá. So Mr. Colebrooke says "the Vishńu P. omits the Śákhás of Aśwaláyana and Sánkhyáyana, and intimates that Śákapúrńi gave the third varied edition from that of Indrapramati." The Váyu, however, is clear in ascribing three Sanhitás or Śákhás to Śákapúrńi.

278:10 In the Váyu the four pupils of Sákapúrńi are called Kenava, Dálaki, Śatavaláka, and Naigama.

278:11 This Báshkali may either be, according to the commentator, the pupil of Paila, who, in addition to the four Sanhitás previously noticed, compiled three others; or he may be another Báshkali, a fellow-pupil of Śákapúrni. The Váyu makes him a disciple of Satyaśrí, the fellow-pupil of Śákalya and Rathántara, and adds the name or title Bháradwája.