SANSKRIT is the name applied by Hindu scholars to the ancient literary language of India. The word samskrita is the past participle of the verb kar, “to make” (cognate with Latin creo), with the preposition sam, “together” (cog. apa, opos, Eng. “same ”), and has probably to be taken here in the sense of “completely formed” or “accurately made, polished,”—some noun meaning “speech” (esp. bhasha) being either expressed or understood with it. The term was, doubtless, originally adopted by native grammarians to distinguish the literary language of the educated classes from the uncultivated popular dialects—the forerunners of the modern vernaculars of northern India—which had, from an early period, developed side by side with it, and which were called (from the same root kar, but with different prepositions) Prakrita, i.e., either “derived” or “natural, common” forms of speech. But this designation of the literary idiom, being evidently intended to imply a language regulated by conventional rules, also involves a distinction between the grammatically fixed language of Brahmanical India and an earlier, less settled, phase of the same language exhibited in the Vedic waitings. For greater convenience the Vedic language is, however, usually included in the term, and scholars generally distinguish between the Vedic and the classical Sanskrit. The Sanskrit language, with its old and modern descendants, represents the easternmost branch of the great IndoGermanic, or Aryan, stock of speech. Philological research has clearly established the fact that the Indo-Aryans must originally have immigrated into India from the north-west. In the oldest literary documents handed down by them their gradual advance can indeed be traced
The origin of comparative philology dates from the time when European scholars became accurately acquainted with the ancient language of India. Before that time classical scholars had been unable, through centuries of learned research, to determine the true relations between the then known languages of our stock. This fact alone shows the importance of Sanskrit for comparative research. Though its value in this respect has perhaps at times been overrated, it may still be considered as the eldest daughter of the old mother-tongue. Indeed, so far as direct documentary evidence goes, it may rather be said to be the only surviving daughter; for none of the other six principal members of the family have left any literary monuments, and their original features have to be reproduced, as best they can, from the materials supplied by their own daughter languages: such is the case as regards the Iranic, Hellenic, Italic, Celtic, Teutonic, and Letto-Slavic languages. To the Sanskrit the antiquity and extent of its literary documents, the transparency of its grammatical structure, the comparatively primitive state of its accent system, and the thorough grammatical treatment it has early received at the hand of native scholars must ever secure the foremost place in the comparative study of Indo-Germanic speech. The Sanskrit alphabet consists of the following sounds :—
(a ) Fourteen vowels, viz.:—
Ten simple vowels: a â, i î, u û, r r, l (l ); and
Four diphthongs: 6 di, 6 du.
(b ) Thirty-three consonants, viz.:—
Five series of mutes and nasals:
guttural: k kh g gh n palatal: c ch j jh ñ lingual: t th d dh n dental: t th d dh n labial: p ph b bh m;
Four semivowels: y r I v (w );
Three sibilants: palatal s, lingual sh , dental s ; and A soft aspirate: A.
(c ) Three unoriginal sounds, viz.:—
visarga (h ), a hard aspirate, standing mostly for original s or r ; and two nasal sounds of less close contact than the mute-nasals, viz., anusvâra (m ) and anumâsika (m).
As regards the vowels, a prominent feature of the language is the prevalence of a -sounds, these being about twice as frequent as all the others, including diphthongs, taken together (Whitney).
The absence of the short vowels ě and ǒ from the Sanskrit alphabet, and the fact that Sanskrit shows the a -vowel where other vowels appear in other languages,— e.g., bharantam = φίροντα, ferentem; janas — ytvos, genus,— were formerly considered as strong evidence in favour of the more primitive state of the Sanskrit vowel system as compared with that of the sister languages. Recent research has, however, shown pretty conclusively from certain indications in the Sanskrit language itself that the latter must at one time have possessed the same, or very nearly the same, three vowel-sounds, and that the differentiation of tho original «-sound must, therefore, have taken place before tho separation of the languages.
The vowels t and 6, though apparently simple sounds, are classed as diphthongs, being contracted from original di and du respectively, and liable to be treated as such in the phonetic modifications they have to undergo before any vowel except d.
As regards the consonants, two of the five series of mutes, the palatal and lingual series, are of secondary (the one of Indo-Iranian, the other of purely Indian) growth.
The palatals are, as a rule, derived from original gutturals, the modification being generally due to the influence of a neighbouring palatal sound i or y, or if (a): e.g., carati = Lat. currit; janu = yovu, genu, knee. The surd aspirate cA, in words of Indo-Germanic origin, almost invariably goes back to original sk : e.g., chid· (chind-)= scindo, σχίζω ; chaya = σκιά.
The palatal sibilant ś (pronounced sh) likewise originated from a guttural mute k, but one of somewhat different phonetic value from that represented by Sanskrit k or c. The latter, usually designated by A* (or q), is frequently liable to labialization (or dentalization) in Greek, probably owing to an original pronunciation kw (qu): e.g., katara = ποτϵρος, uter ; while the former (k 1 ) shows invariably κ in Greek, and a sibilant in the Letto-Slavic and the Indo-Iranian languages: e.g., svan (sun) = κύων (κνν), canis, Germ, hund; daian=SeKa, decern, Goth, taihun.
The non-original nature of the palatals betrays itself even in Sanskrit by their inability to occur at the end of a word,— e.g., acc. vacam = Lat. vocem, but nom. vdk = vox,— and by otherwise frequently reverting to the guttural state.
The linguals differ in pronunciation from the dentals in their being uttered with the tip of the tongue turned up to the dome of the palate, while in the utterance of the dentals it is pressed against the upper teeth, not against the upper gums as is done in the English dentals, which to Hindus sound more like their own linguals. The latter, when occurring in words of Aryan origin, are, as a rule, modifications of original dentals, usually accompanied by the loss of an x or other adjoining consonant; but more commonly they occur in words of foreign, probably non-Aryan, origin, of regular occurrence in tho language, however, is the change of dental n into lingual n, and of dental s into lingual sh, when preceded in the same word by certain other letters.
The sonant aspirate h is likewise non-original, being usually derived from original sonant aspirated mutes, especially gh: e.g., hamsa = xhv (for χανς), anser, Germ, gans; aham = ϵγών, ego, Goth. ik.
The contact of final and initial letters of words in the same sentence is often attended in Sanskrit with considerable euphonic modifications; and we have no means of knowing how far the practice of the vernacular language may have corresponded to these phonetic theories. There can be no doubt, however, that a good deal in this respect has to be placed to the account of grammatical reflexion; and the very facilities which the primitive structure of the language offered for grammatical analysis and an insight into the principles of internal modification may have given the first impulse to external modifications of a similar kind.
None of the cognate languages exhibits in so transparent a manner as the Sanskrit the cardinal principle of Indo-Germanic word-formation by the addition of inflexional endings—either caseendings or personal terminations (themselves probably original roots)—to stems obtained, mainly by means of suffixes, from monosyllabic roots, with or without internal modifications.
There are in Sanskrit declension three numbers and seven cases, not counting the vocative, viz., nominative, accusative, instrumental, dative, ablative, genitive and locative. As a matter of fact, all these seven cases appear, however, only in the singular of «-stems and of the pronominal declension, other noun-stems have only one case-form for the ablative and genitive singular. In the plural, the ablative everywhere shares its form with the dative (except in tho personal pronoun, where it has the same ending as in the singular), whilst the dual shows only three different case-forms—one for the nominative and accusative, another for the instrumental, dative, and ablative, and a third for the genitive and locative.
The declension of a-stems, corresponding to the first and second Latin declensions, is of especial interest, not so much on account of its being predominant from the earliest time, and becoming more and more so with the development of the language, but because it presents the greatest number of alternative forms, which supply a kind of test for determining the age of literary productions, a test which indeed has already been applied to some extent by Professor Lanman, in his excellent Statistical Account of Noun Inflexion in the Veda. These alternative case-forms are :—
(1) dsas and ds for tho nominative plural masc. and fern.: e.g., asvasas and asvas = cqui (equae). The forms in dsas,— explained by Bopp as the sign of the plural as applied twice, and by Schleicher as the sign of the plural as added to the nominative singular,— occur to those in ds (i.e., the ordinary plural sign as added to the a-stem) in the Rigveda in the proportion of 1 to 2, and in the peculiar parts of the Atharvaveda in that of 1 to 25, whilst the ending ds alone remains in the later language.
(2) â and âni for the nominative and accusative plural of neuters: as yugd, yugdni = ζυγά, juga. The proportion of the former ending to the latter in the Rik is 11 to 7, in the Atharvan 2 to 3, whilst the classical Sanskrit knows only the second form.
(3) ebhis and dis for the instrumental plural masc. and neuter: e.g., devebhis, devais. In the Rik the former forms are to the latter in the proportion of 5 to 6, in the Atharvan of 1 to 5, while in the later language only the contracted form is used. The same contraction is found in other languages; but it is doubtful whether it did not originate independently in them.
(4) â and âu for the nominative and accusative dual masc.: e.g., ubhd, ubhdu = In the Rik forms in â outnumber those in âu more than eight times; whilst in tho Atharvan, on the contrary, those in âu (the only ending used in the classical language) occur five times as often as those in â.
(5) â and ena (enâ) for the instrumental singular masc. and neut.: as dânâ, dânena = dono. The ending ena is the one invariably used in the later language. It is likewise the usual form in the Veda; but in a number of cases it shows a final long vowel which, though it may be entirely due to metrical requirements, is more probably a relic of the normal instrumental ending â, preserved for prosodic reasons. For the simple ending â, as compared with that in ena, Prof. Lanman makes out a proportion of about 1 to 9 in the Rigveda (altogether 114 cases); while in the peculiar parts of the Atharvan he finds only 11 cases.
(6) âin and ânám for the genitive plural: e.g., (asvâm), asvânâm = Ticiruv, equum (cquorum). The form with inserted nasal (doubtless for andm, as in Zend aspanam), which is exclusively used in the later language, is also the prevailing one in tho Rik. There are, however, a few genitives of «-stems in original dm (for a-dm), which also appear in Zend, Prof. Lanman enumerating a dozen instances, some of which are, however, doubtful, while others are merely conjectural.
The Sanskrit verb system resembles that of the Greek in variety and completeness. While the Greek excels in nicety and definiteness of modal distinction, the Sanskrit surpasses it in primitiveness and transparency of formation. In this part of the grammatical system there is, however, an even greater difference than in the noun inflexion between the Vedic and the classical Sanskrit. While the former shows, upon the whole, the full complement of modal forms exhibited by the Greek, the later language has practically discarded the subjunctive mood. The Indo-Aryans never succeeded in working out a clear formative distinction between the subjunctive and indicative moods.; and, their syntactic requirements becoming more and more limited, they at last contented themselves, for modal expression, with a present optative and imperative, in addition to the indicative tense-forms, and a little-used aorist optative with a special “precative” or “benedictive” meaning attached to it.
Another part of the verb in which the later language differs widely from Vedic usage is the infinitive. The language of the old hymns shows a considerable variety of case-forms of verbal abstract nouns with the function of infinitives, a certain number of which can still be traced back to the parent language, as, for instance, such dative forms as jiv-ase = viv-ere; sah-adhyai = έχεσϴαι; dâ - mane = δόμεναι; dâ-vane = δόύναι. Further, ji-she, “to conquer,” for ji-si, apparently an aorist infinitive with the dative ending (parallel to the radical forms, such as yudh-i, “to fight,” dris'-e, “to see”), thus corresponding to the Greek aorist infinitive λυσαι (but cf. also Latin da-re, for dase, es-se, &c.). The classical Sanskrit, on the other hand, practically uses only one infinitive form, viz., the accusative of a verbal noun in tu, e.g., sthatum, etum, corresponding to the Latin supinum datum, Hum. But, as in Latin another case, the ablative (datu), of the same abstract noun is utilized for a similar purpose, so the Vedic language makes two other cases do duty as infinitives, viz., the dative in lave (e.g., datave, and the anomalous é tavai), and the gen.-abl. in tos (datos). A prominent featuro of the later Sanskrit syntax is the so-called gerund or indeclinable participle in tvâ, apparently the instrumental of a stem in tva (probably a derivative from that in tu), as well as the gerund in ya (or tya after a final short radical vowel) made from compound verbs. The old language knows not only such gerunds in tvA, using them, however, very sparingly, but also corresponding dative forms in tvâya (yuktvdya), and the curious contracted forms in tvî (kritvi, “to do ”). And, besides those in ya and tya, it frequently uses forms with a final long vowel, as bhid-yd, i-tyd, thus showing the former to be shortened instrumentals of abstract nouns in i and ti.
The Sanskrit verb, like the Greek, has two voices, active and middle, called, after their pamary functions, parasmâi-pacla, “word for another,” and âtmane-pada, “word for one’s self.” While in Greek the middle forms have to do duty also for the passive in all tenses except the aorist and future, the Sanskrit, on the other hand, has developed for the passive a special present-stem in ya, the other tenses being supplied by the corresponding middle forms, with the exception of the third person singular aorist, for which a special form in i is usually assigned to the passive.
The present-stem system is by far the most important part of the whole verb system, both on account of frequency of actual occurrence and of its excellent state of preservation. It is with regard to the different ways of present-stem formation that the entire stock of assumed roots has been grouped by the native grammarians under ten different classes. These classes again naturally fall under two divisions or “conjugations,” with this characteristic difference that the one (the second) retains the same stem (ending in a) throughout the present and imperfect, only lengthening the final vowel before terminations beginning with v or m (not final); while the other shows two different forms of the stem, a strong and a weak form, according as the accent falls on the stem-syllable or on the personal ending: e.g., 3 sing, bhára-ti, ϕϵρϵι— 2 pl. bhára-tha, ϕϵρϵτϵ ; but e -ti, eicri—i-tha, ire (for ίτέ); 1 sing, strno-mi, στόρ-νυμι— 1 pl. strnu-mas (στόρνυϵς ).
As several of the personal endings show a decided similarity to personal or demonstrative pronouns, it is highly probable that, as might indeed be a priori expected, all or most of them are of pronominal origin,—though, owing to their exposed position and consequent decay, their original form and identity cannot now be determined with certainty. The active singular terminations, with the exception of the second person of the imperative, are unaccented and of comparatively light appearance; while those of the dual and plural, as well as the middle terminations, have the accent, being apparently too heavy to be supported by the stem-accent, either because, as Schleicher supposed, they are composed of two different pronominal elements, or otherwise. The treatment of the personal endings in the first, and presumably older, conjugation may thus be said somewhat to resemble that of enclitics in Greek.
In the imperfect, the present-stem is increased by the augment, consisting of a prefixed a. Here, as in the other tenses in which it appears, it has invariably the accent, as being the distinctive element (originally probably an independent demonstrative adverb “then ”) for the expression of past time. This shifting of the word-accent seems to have contributed to the further reduction of the personal endings, and thus caused the formation of a new, or secondary, set of terminations which came to be appropriated for secondary tenses and moods generally. As in Greek poetry, the augment is frequently omitted in Sanskrit.
The mood-sign of the subjunctive is a, added to (the strong form of) the tense-stem. If the stem ends already in a, the latter becomes lengthened. As regard the personal terminations, some persons take the primary, others the secondary forms, while others again may take either the one or the other. The first singular active, however, takes ni instead of mi, to distinguish it from the indicative. But besides these forms, showing the mood-sign a, the subjunctive (both present and aorist) may take another form, without any distinctive modal sign, and with the secondary endings, being thus identical with the augmentless form of the preterite.
The optative invariably takes the secondary endings, with some peculiar variations. In the active of the first conjugation, its mood-sign is yA, affixed to the weak form of the stem: e.g., root as,— syâm = Lat. siem, sîm; while in the second conjugation and throughout the middle it is f, probably a contraction of yâ: e.g., bhares = ϕepois.
Besides the ordinary perfect, made from a reduplicated stem, with distinction between strong (active singular) and weak forms, and a partly peculiar set of endings, the later language makes large use of a periphrastic perfect, consisting of the accusative of a feminine abstract noun in A (-Am) with the reduplicated perfect forms of the auxiliary verbs kar, “to do,” or as (and occasionally bhû), “to be.” Though more particularly resorted to for the derivative forms of conjugation—viz., the causative (including the so-called tenth conjugational class), the desiderative, intensive, and denominative—this perfect-form is also commonly used with roots beginning with prosodically long vowels, as well as with a few other isolated roots. In the Rigveda this formation is quite unknown, and the Atharvan offers a single instance of it, from a causative verb, with the auxiliary kar. In the Vedic prose, on the other hand, it is rather frequent, and it is quite common in the later language.
In addition to the ordinary participles, active and middle, of the reduplicated perfect,— e.g., jajan-van, yeyov-ds; bubudh-âná, πεπυσ-μένο,— there is a secondary participial formation, obtained by affixing the possessive suffix vat (rant) to the passive past participle: e.g., krita-vant, lit. “having (that which is) done.” A secondary participle of this kind occurs once in the Atharvaveda, and it is occasionally met with in the Brahmanas. In the later language, however, it not only is of rather frequent occurrence, but has assumed quite a new function, viz., that of a finite perfect-form; thus kritavdn, kritavantas, without any auxiliary verb, mean, not “having done, but “he has done,” “they have done.”
The original Indo-Germanic future-stem formation in sya, with primary endings,— e.g., dasyati = δώσει (for δώσετι),— is the ordinary tense-form both in Vedic and classical Sanskrit,—a preterite of it, with a conditional force attached to it (adasyat), being also common to all periods of the language.
Side by side with this future, however, an analytic tense-form makes its appearance in the Brahmanas, obtaining wider currency in the later language. This periphrastic future is made by means of the nominative singular of a nomen agentis in tar (datar, nom. data=Lat. dator), followed by the corresponding present forms of as, “to be” (dâtâ-smi, as it were, daturus sum), with the exception of the third persons, which need no auxiliary, but take the respective nominative of the noun.
The aorist system is somewhat complicated, including as it does augment-preterites of various formations, viz., a radical aorist, sometimes with reduplicated stem,— e.g., ásthâm= έστην; srudhi = κλυθ; á dudrot; an a-aorist (or thematic aorist) with or without reduplication,— e.g., aricas=enres; dpaptam, cf. ϵπϕνον; and several different forms of a sibilant-aorist. In the older Vedic language the radical aorist is far more common than the a-aorist, which becomes more frequently used later on. Of the different kinds of sibilant-aorists, the most common is the one which makes its stem by the addition of s to the root, either with or without a connecting vowel i in different roots: e.g., root ji— 1 sing, djdisham, 1 pl. Ajdishma; dkramisham, dkramishma. A limited number of roots take a double aorist-sign with inserted connecting vowel (sish for sis),—e.g., aydsisham (cf. scrip-sis-ti); whilst others—very rarely in the older but more numerously in the later language—make their aorist-stem by the addition of sa,—e.g., ádikshas= ϵδϵιξας.
As regards the syntactic functions of the three preterites,—the imperfect, perfect, and aorist,—the classical writers make virtually no distinction between them, but use them quite indiscriminately. In the older language, on the other hand, the imperfect is chiefly used as a narrative tense, while the other two generally refer to a past action which is now complete,—the aorist, however, more frequently to that which is only just done or completed. The perfect, owing doubtless to its reduplicative form, has also not infrequently the force of an iterative, or intensive, present.
The Sanskrit, like the Greek, shows at all times a considerable power and facility of noun-composition. But, while in the older language, as well as in the earlier literary products of the classical period, such combinations rarely exceed the limits compatible with the general economy of inflexional speech, during the later, artificial period of the language they gradually become more and more excessive, both in size and frequency of use, till at last they, absorb almost the entire range of syntactic construction.
One of the most striking features of Sanskrit word-formation is that regular interchange of light and strong vowel-sounds, usually designated by the native terms of guna (quality) and vriddhi (increase). The phonetic process implied in these terms consists in the raising, under certain conditions, of a radical or thematic light vowel i, u, r, l, by means of an inserted a-sound, to the diphthongal (guna) sounds di (Sanskr. ê ), ău (Sariskr. ô), and the combination ar and al respectively, and, by a repetition of the same process, to the (vriddhi) sounds â i, âu, âr, and âl respectively. Thus from root vid, “to know,” we have véda, “knowledge, ’ and therefrom vâidika; from yug, yóga, yâúgika. While the interchange of the former kind, due mainly to accentual causes, was undoubtedly a common feature of Indo-Germanic speech, the latter, or vriddhi-change, which chiefly occurs in secondary stems, is probably a later development. Moreover, there can be no doubt that the vriddhi-vowels are really due to what the term implies, viz., to a process of “increment,” or vowel-raising. The same was universally assumed by comparative philologists till a few years ago, as regards the relation between the guna-sounds di (8) and ău (6) and the respective simple i- and «-sounds. According to a recent theory, however, which has already received a considerable amount of acceptance, we are henceforth to look upon the heavier vowels as the original, and upon the lighter vowels as the later sounds, produced through the absence of stress and pitch. The grounds on which this theory is recommended are those of logical consistency. In the analogous cases of interchange between r and ar, as well as l and al, most scholars have indeed been wont to regard the syllabic r and l as weakened from original ar and al, while the native grammarians represent the latter as produced from the former by increment. Similarly the verb as (ĕs), “to be,” loses its vowel wherever the radical syllable is unaccented: c.g., dsti, Lat. est—smás, s(u)mus ; opt. syâm, Lat. siēm (sīm). For other analogous cases of vowel-change, see Philology, vol. xviii. p. 783 sq. On the strength of these analogous cases of vowel-modification we are, therefore, to accept some such equation as this :—
ásmi: smás = δϵρκομαι: ϵδρ(α)κον = λϵίπω: λιπϵιν =emi (ϵιμϵν): imás (ιμϵν for ίμϵν) =ϕϵύγω: ϕυγϵιν = dóhmi (I milk): duhmás.
Acquiescence in this equation would seem to involve at least one important admission, viz., that original root-syllables contained no simple i- and u -vowels, except as the second element of the diphthongs ai, ei, oi; au, eu, ou. We ought no longer to speak of the roots vid, “to know,” dik, “to show, to bid,” dhugh, “to milk,” yug, “to join,” but of vcid, dcik, dhaugh or dhcugh, yeug, &c. Nay, as the same law would apply with equal force to suffixal vowels, the suffix nu would have to be called nau or neu ; and, in explaining, for instance, the irregularly formed δϵίκνυμι, δϵίκνυμϵν, we might say that, by the. affixion of vev to the root δϵικ, the present-stem δικνϵύ was obtained (δικνϵυμι), which, as the stress was shifted forward, became 1 plur. δικνυμϵσ(ι),—the subsequent modifications in the radical and formative syllables being due to the effects of “analogy” (cf. G. Meyer, Griech. Gramm,., § 487). Now, if there be any truth in the “agglutination” theory, according to which the radical and formative elements of Indo-Germanic speech were at one time independent words, we would have to be prepared for a pretty liberal allowance, to the parent language, of diphthongal monosyllables such as dcik ned, while simple combinations such as dik nu could only spring up after separate syllable-words had become united by the force of a common accent. But, whether the agglutinationists be right or wrong, a thcory involving the priority of the diphthongal over the simple sounds can hardly be said to be one of great prima facie probability; and one may well ask whether the requirements of logical consistency might not be satisfied in some other, less improbable, way.
Now, the analogous cases which have called forth this theory turn upon the loss of a radical or suffixal a (ĕ), occasioned by the shifting of the word-accent to some other syllable: e.g., acc. mâtáram, instr. mâtra; πϵτομαι, ϵπτόμην; δϵρκομαι , ϵδρ(α)κον ; ásmi, smás. Might we not then assume that at an early stage of noun and verb inflexion, through the giving way, under certain conditions, of the stem a (ĕ), the habit of stem-gradation, as an element of inflexion, came to establish itself and ultimately to extend its sphere over stems with i- and u -vowels, but that, on meeting here with more resistance than in the a (ĕ)-vowel, the stem-gradation then took the shape of a raising of the simple vowel, in the “strong” cases and verb-forms, by that same a- element which constituted the distinctive element of those cases in the other variable stems? In this way the above equation would still hold good, and the corresponding vowel-grades, though of somewhat different genesis, would yet be strictly analogous.
The accent of Sanskrit words is marked only in the more important Vedic texts, different systems of notation being used in different works. Our knowledge of the later accentuation of words is entirely derived from the statements of grammarians. As in Greek, there are three accents, the udâtta (“raised,” i.e., acute), the anudâtta (“not raised,” i.e., grave), and the svarita (“sounded, modulated,” i.e., circumflex). The last is a combination of the two others, its proper use being confined almost entirely to a vowel preceded by a semivowel y or v, representing an original acuted vowel. Hindu scholars, however, also include in this term the accent of a grave syllable preceded by an acuted syllable, and itself followed by a grave.
The Sanskrit and Greek accentuations present numerous coincidences. Although the Greek rule, confining the accent within the last three syllables, has frequently obliterated the original likeness, the old features may often be traced through the later forms. Thus, though augmented verb-forms in Greek cannot always have the accent on the augment as in Sanskrit, they have it invariably as little removed from it as the accentual restrictions will allow: e.g., ábharam, ϵϕϵρον; ábharâma, ϵϕϵρομϵν; ábharâ-mahi, ϵϕϵρόμϵθα.
The most striking coincidence in noun declension is the accentual distinction made by both languages between the “strong” and “weak” cases of monosyllabic nouns,—the only difference in this respect being that in Sanskrit the accusative plural, as a rule, has the accent on the case-ending, and consequently shows the weak form of the stem: e.g., stem pad, ποδ ; padam, πόδα ; padás, ποδός ; padi, ποδí; pâdas, πόδϵς; padás, πόδας; padam, ποδών; patsú, ποσí. In Sanskrit a few other classes of stems (especially present participles in ant, at), accented on the last syllable, are apt to yield their accent to heavy vowel (not consonantal) terminations; compare the analogous accentuation of Sanskrit and Greek stems in tár: pitáram, πατϵρα; pitré, πατρός; pitáras, πατϵρϵς; pitrshu, πατρ(ά)σι. ·
The vocative, when heading a sentence (or verse-division), has invariably the accent on the first syllable; otherwise it is not accented.
Finite verb-forms also, as a rule, lose their accent, except when standing at the beginning of a sentence or verse-division (a vocative not being taken into account), or in dependent (mostly relative) clauses, or in conjunction with certain particles. Of two or more co-ordinate verb-forms, however, only the first is unaccented.
In writing Sanskrit the natives, in different parts of India, generally employ the particular character used for writing their own vernacular. The character, however, most widely understood and employed by Hindu scholars, and used invariably in European editions of Sanskrit works (unless printed in Roman letters) is the so-called Devandgarl, or ndgari (“town’’-script) of the gods.
The origin of the Indian alphabets is still enveloped in doubt. The oldest hitherto known specimens of Indian writing are five rock-inscriptions, containing religious edicts in Pali (the Prakrit used in the Buddhist scriptures), issued by the emperor Aśoka (Piyadasi) of the Maurya dynasty, in 253-251 B.C., and scattered over the area of northern India from the vicinity of Peshawar, on the north-west frontier, and Girnar in Guzerat, to Jaugada and Dhauli in Katak, on the eastern coast. The most western of these inscriptions—called, from villages near it, the Kapurdagarhi or Shâhbâz-garhi inscription—is executed in a different alphabet from the others. It reads from right to left, and is usually called the Arian Pali alphabet, it being also used on the coins of the Greek and Indo-Scythian princes of Ariana; while the other, which reads from left to right, is called the Indian Pali alphabet. The former, which is manifestly derived from a Semitic (probably Aramaean) source, has left no traces on the subsequent development of Indian writing. The Indo-Pali alphabet, on the other hand, from which the modern Indian alphabets are derived, is of uncertain origin. The similarity, however, which several of its letters present to those of the old Phoenician alphabet (itself probably derived from the Egyptian hieroglyphics) suggests for this alphabet also—or at least for the germ of it—the probability of a Semitic origin, though, already at Aśoka’s time, the Indians had worked it up to a high degree of perfection and wonderfully adapted it to their peculiar scientific.ends. As to the probable time and channel of its introduction, no satisfactory theory has yet been proposed. Considering, however, the high state of perfection it exhibits in the Maurya and Andhra inscriptions, as well as the wide area over which these are scattered, it can hardly be doubted that the art of writing must have been known to and practised by the Indians for various purposes long before the time of Aśoka. The fact that no reference to it is found in the contemporary literature has probably to be accounted for by a strong reluctance on the part of the Brahmans to commit their sacred works to writing. A useful resume of the various theories proposed on this subject will be found in a paper contributed by Mr R. Cust to the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, new series, vol. xvi.
The invention of the numeral figures, which used to be generally ascribed to the Indians, has also been rendered doubtful by more recent research.
An excellent Sanskrit grammar, dealing with the language historically, lias been published by Prof. W. D. Whitney. Of other English grammars, dealing almost exclusively with the classical Sanskrit, those of Profs. Max Müller, Monier williams, and F. Kielhorn are now most widely used.
The best dictionary Is the great Sanskrit-German Worterbuch, published at St Petersburg, in 7 vols., by Profs. Böhtlingk and Roth. Largely based on this great thesaurus are the Sanskrit-English dictionaries by Prof. M. williams and the late Prof. Th. Benfey. The history of Sanskrit literature labours under the same disadvantage as the political history of ancient India, from the total want of anything like a fixed chronology. As there are extremely few well-ascertained political facts until comparatively recent times, so in that whole vast range of literary development there is scarcely a work of importance the date of which scholars have succeeded in fixing with absolute certainty. The original composition of most Sanskrit works can indeed be confidently assigned to certain general periods of literature, but as to many of them, and these among the most important, scholars have but too much reason to doubt whether they have come down to us in their original shape, or whether they have not rather, in course of time, undergone alterations and additions so serious as to make it impossible to regard them as genuine witnesses of any one phase of the development of the Indian mind. Nor can we expect many important chronological data from the new materials which will doubtless yet be brought to light in India. Though by such discoveries a few isolated spots may indeed be lighted up here and there, the real task of clearing away the mist which at present obscures our view, if ever it can be cleared away, will have to be performed by patient research—by a more minute critical examination of the multitudinous writings which have been handed down from the remote past. In the following sketch it is intended to take a rapid view of the more important works and writers in the several departments of literature.
In accordance with the two great phases of linguistic development above referred to, the history of Sanskrit literature readily divides itself into two principal periods, the Vedic and the classical. It should, however, be noted that these periods partly overlap each other, and that some of the later Vedic works are included in that period on account of the subjects with which they deal, and for their archaic style, rather than for any just claim to a higher antiquity than may have to be assigned to the oldest works of the classical Sanskrit.
I. The Vedic Period.
The term veda—i.e., “knowledge,” (sacred) “lore ”— embraces a body of writings the origin of which is ascribed to divine revelation (śruti, literally “hearing”), and which forms the foundation of the Brahmanical system of religious belief. This sacred canon is divided into three or (according to a later scheme) four coordinate collections, likewise called Veda:—(1) the Rig-veda, or lore of praise (or hymns); (2) the Sâma-veda, or lore of tunes (or chants) ; (3) the Yajur-veda, or lore of prayer; and (4) the Atharva-veda, or lore of the Atharvans. Each of these four Vedas consists primarily of a collection (samhitâ) of sacred, mostly poetical, texts of a devotional nature, called mantra. This entire body of texts (and particularly the first three collections) is also frequently referred to as the trayî vidyâ, or threefold wisdom, of hymn (rich ), tune or chant (sâman), and prayer (yajus),— the fourth Veda, if at all included, being in that case classed together with the Rik.
The Brahmanical religion finds its practical expression chiefly 'in sacrificial performances. The Vedic sacrifice requires for its proper performance the attendance of four officiating priests, each of whom is assisted by one or more (usually three) subordinate priests, viz.:—(1) the Hotar (i.e., either “sacrificer,” or “invoker ”), whose chief business is to invoke the gods, either in short prayers pronounced over the several oblations, or in liturgical recitations (sastra), made up of various hymns and detached verses ; (2) the Udgdtar, or chorister, who has to perform chants (stotra) in connexion with the hotar’s recitations; (3) the Adhvaryu, or offering priest par excellence, who performs all the material duties of the sacrifice, such as the kindling of the fires, the preparation of the sacrificial ground and the offerings, the making of oblations, &c.; (4) the Brahman, or chief “priest,” who has to superintend the performance and to rectify any mistakes that may be committed. Now, the first three of these priests stand in special relation to three of the Vedic Samhitas in this way, that the Samhitas of the Samaveda and Yajurveda form special song and prayer books, arranged for the practical use of the udgatar and adhvaryu respectively; whilst the Rik-samhita, though not arranged for any such practical purpose, contains the entire body of sacred lyrics whence the hotar draws the material for his recitations. The brahman, on the other hand, had no special text-book assigned to him, but was expected to be familiar with all the Samhitas as well as with the practical details of the sacrificial performance. In point of fact, however, the brahmans, though their attendance at Vedic sacrifices was required, can scarcely be said to have formed a separate class of priests: their office was probably one which might be held by any priest of the three other classes who had acquired the necessary qualification by additional study of the other Samhitas and manuals of ritual. In later times, when the votaries of the fourth Veda pressed for recognition of their Samhita as part of the sacred canon, the brahman priest was claimed by them as specially connected with the Atharvaveda. It is perhaps for this reason that the latter is also called the Brahmaveda,— though this designation may also be taken to mean the Veda of spells or secret doctrines (brahman). It sometimes happens that verses not found in our version of the Rik-samhita, but in the Atharvaveda-samhita, are used by the hotar; but such texts, if they did not actually form part of some other version of the Rik,—as Sayana in the introduction to his commentary on the Rik-samhita assures us that they did,—were probably inserted in the liturgy subsequent to the recognition of the fourth Veda.
The several Samhitas have attached to them certain theological prose works, called Brahmana, which, though subordinate in authority to the Mantras or Samhitas, are like them held to be divinely revealed and to form part of the canon. The chief works of this class are of an exegetic nature,—their purport being to supply a dogmatic exposition of the sacrificial ceremonial in so far as the particular class of priests for whose enlightenment the Brahmana is intended is concerned in it. Notwithstanding the uninteresting character of no small part of their contents, the Brahmanas are of considerable importance, both as regards the history of Indian institutions and as “the oldest body of Indo-European prose, of a generally free, vigorous, simple form, affording valuable glimpses backward at the primitive condition of unfettered Indo-European talk” (Whitney).
More or less closely connected with the Brahmanas (and in a few exceptional cases with Samhitâs) are two classes of treatises, called Âranyaka and Upanishad. The Aranyakas, i.e., works “relating to the forest,” being intended to be read by those who have retired from the world and lead the life of anchorites, do not greatly differ in character and style from the Brahmanas, but like them are chiefly ritualistic, treating of special ceremonies not dealt with, or dealt with only imperfectly, in the latter works, to which they thus stand in the relation of supplements. The Upanishads, on the other hand, are of a purely speculative nature, and must be looked upon as the first attempts at a systematic treatment of metaphysical questions. The number of Upanishads hitherto known is very considerable (about 170); but, though they nearly all profess to belong to the Atharvaveda, they have to be assigned to very different periods of Sanskrit literature,—some of them being evidently quite modern productions. The oldest treatises of this kind are doubtless those which form part of Vedic Sanihitas, Brahmanas, and Aranyakas, though not a few others which have no such special connexion have to be classed with the later products of the Vedic age.
As the sacred texts were not committed to writing till a much later period, but were handed down orally in the Brahmanical schools, it was inevitable that local differences of reading should spring up, which in course of time gave rise to a number of independent versions, more or less differing from one another. Such different text-recensions, called sakha (i.e., branch), were at one time very numerous, but only a limited number of them have survived. As regards the Samhitas, the poetical form of the hymns, as well as the concise style of the sacrificial formulas, would render these texts less liable to change, and the discrepancies of different versions would chiefly consist in various readings of single words or in the different arrangement of the textual matter. The diffuse ritualistic discussions and loosely connected legendary illustrations of the Brahmanas, on the other hand, offered scope for very considerable modifications in the traditional matter, either through the ordinary processes of oral transmission or through the special influence of individual teachers.
An original Brahmana, then, may be characterized as a series of theoretic discourses, composed by recognized authorities on ritualistic matters, such as might be delivered or referred to in connexion with practical instruction in the sacrificial art. The growing intricacy of the ceremonial, however, could not fail, in course of time, to create a demand for treatises of a more practical tendency, setting forth, in concise and methodical form, the duties of the several priests in the sacrificial performances. But, besides the purely ceremonial matter, the Brahmanas also contained a considerable amount of matter bearing on the correct interpretation of the Vedic texts; and, indeed, the sacred obligation incumbent on the Brahmans of handing down correctly the letter and sense of those texts necessarily involved a good deal of serious grammatical and etymological study in the Brahmanical schools. These literary pursuits could not but result in the accumulation of much learned material, which it would become more and more desirable to throw into a systematic form, serving at the same time as a guide for future research. These practical requirements were met by a class of treatises, grouped under six different heads or subjects, called Vedangas, i.e., members, or limbs, of the (body of the) Veda. None of the works, however, which have come down to us under this designation can lay any just claim to being considered as the original treatises on their several subjects; but they evidently represent a more or less advanced stage of scientific development. Though a few of them are composed in metrical form— especially in the ordinary epic couplet, the anushtubh śloka, consisting of two lines of sixteen syllables, or of two octosyllabic padas. each—the majority of them belong to a class of writings called stitra, i.e., “string, consisting as they do of strings of rules in the shape of tersely expressed aphorisms, intended to be committed to memory. The Sûtras form a connecting link between the Vedic and the classical periods of literature. But, although these treatises, so far as they deal with Vedic subjects, are included by the native authorities among the Vedic writings, and in point of language may, generally speaking, be considered as the latest products of the Vedic age, they have no share in the sacred title of sruti or revelation. They are of human, not of divine, origin. And yet, as the production of men of the highest standing, and profoundly versed in Vedic lore, the Sfitras are naturally regarded as works of great authority, second only to that of the revealed scriptures themselves; and their relation to the latter is expressed in the generic title of Smriti, or Tradition, usually applied to them.
The six branches of Vedic science, included under the term Vedânga, are as follows :—
(1) Sikshâ, or Phonetics. The privileged position of representing this subject is assigned to a small treatise ascribed to the great grammarian Pânini, viz., the Pâninîyâ śikshâ, extant in two different (Rik and Yajus) recensions. But neither this treatise nor any other of the numerous aikshas which have recently come to light can lay claim to any very high age. Scholars, however, usually include under this head certain works, called Prâtisdkhya, i.e., “belonging to a certain śakhâ or recension,” which deal minutely with the phonetic peculiarities of the several Samhitas, and are of great importance for the textual criticism of the Vedic Samhitas.
(2) Chhandas, or Metre. Tradition makes the Chhan-dah-sûtra of Pingala the starting-point of prosody. The Vedic metres, however, occupy but a small part of this treatise, and they are evidently dealt with in a more original manner in the Nidana-sûtra of the Samaveda, and in a chapter of the Rik-pratisakhya. For profane prosody, on the other hand, Pingala’s treatise is rather valuable, no less than 160 metres being described by him.
(3) Vydkarana, or Grammar. Panini’s famous grammar is said to be the Vedânga; but it marks the culminating point of grammatical research rather than the beginning, and besides treats chiefly of the post-Vedic language.
(4) Nirukta, or Etymology. Yâska’s Nirukta is the traditional representative of this subject, and this important work certainly deals entirely with Vedic etymology or explanation. It consists, in the first place, of strings of words in three chapters:—(1) synonymous words; (2) such as are purely or chiefly Vedic; and (3) names of deities. These lists are followed by Yâska’s commentary, interspersed with numerous illustrations. Yâska, again, quotes several predecessors in the same branch of science; and it is probable that the original works on this subject consisted merely of lists of words similar to those handed down by him.
(5) Jyotisha, or Astronomy. Although astronomical calculations are frequently referred to in older works in connexion with the performance of sacrifices, the metrical treatise which has come down to us in two different recensions under the title of Jyotisha, ascribed to one Lagadha, or Lagata, seems indeed to be the oldest existing systematic treatise on astronomical subjects. With the exception of some apparently spurious verses of one of the recensions, it betrays no sign of the Greek influence which shows itself in Hindu astronomical works from about the third century of our era; and its date may therefore be set down as probably not later than the early centuries after Christ.
(6) Kalpa, or Ceremonial. Tradition does not single out any special work as the Vedanga in this branch of Vedic science; but the sacrificial practice gave rise to a large number of systematic sfitra-manuals for the several classes of priests. The most important of these works have come down to us, and they occupy by far the most prominent place among the literary productions of the sûtra-period. The Kalpa-sutras, or rules of ceremonial, are of two kinds:—(1) the Śrauta-sûtras, which are based on the £ruti, and teach the performance of the great sacrifices, requiring three sacrificial fires; and (2) the Smârta-sutras, or rules based on the smriti or tradition. The latter class again includes two kinds of treatises:—(1) the Grihya-sûtras, or domestic rules, treating of ordinary family rites, such as marriage, birth, name-giving, &c., connected with simple offerings in the domestic fire; and (2) the Sâmayâchârika- (or Dharma-) sûtras, which treat of customs and temporal duties, and are supposed to have formed the chief sources of the later law-books. Besides, the Śrauta-sûtras of the Yajurveda have usually attached to them a set of so-called Śulva-sûtras, i.e., “rules of the cord,” which treat of the measurement by means of cords, and the construction, of different kinds of altars required for sacrifices. These treatises (the study of which has been successfully taken up by Prof. Thibaut of Benares) are of considerable interest as supplying important information regarding the earliest geometrical operations in India. Along with the Sutras may be classed a large number of supplementary treatises, usually called Pariśishta (παραλιόμϵνα), on various subjects connected with the sacred texts and Vedic religion generally.
After this brief characterization of the various branches of Vedic literature, we proceed to take a rapid survey of the several Vedic collections.
A. Rigveda. — The Rigveda-samhitâ has come down to us in the recension of the Sakala school. Mention is made of several other versions; and regarding one of them, that of the Bashkalas, we have some further information, according to which it seems, however, to have differed but little from the Sakala text. The latter consists of 1028 hymns, including eleven so-called Vâlakhilyas, which were probably introduced into the collection subsequently to its completion. The hymns are composed in a great variety of metres, and consist, on an average, of rather more than 10 verses each, or about 10,600 verses altogether. This body of sacred lyrics has been subdivided by ancient authorities in a twofold way, viz., either from a purely artificial point of view, into eight ashtakas of about equal length, or, on a more natural principle, based on the origin of the hymns, and invariably adopted by European scholars, into ten books, or mandalas, of unequal length. Tradition (not, however, always trustworthy in this respect) has handed down the names of the reputed authors, or rather inspired “seers” (rishi), of most hymns. These indications have enabled scholars to form some idea as to the probable way in which the Rik-samhita originated, though much still remains to be cleared up by future research.
In the first place, mandalas ii.-vii. are evidently arranged on a uniform plan. Each of them is ascribed to a different family of rishis, whence they are usually called the six “family-books — ii., the Gritsamadas; iii., the Visvamitras or Kusikas; iv., the Vâma-devyas; v., the Atris; vi., the Bharadvajas; and vii., the Vasishthas. Further, each of these books begins with the hymns addressed to Agni, the god of fire, which are followed by those to Indra, the Jupiter Pluvius, whereupon follow those addressed to minor deities— the Visve Devah (“all-gods ”), the Maruts (storm-gods), &c. Again, the hymns addressed to each deity are arranged (as Prof. Delbriick has shown) in a descending order, according to the number of verses of which they consist.
The first mandala, the longest in the whole Samhita, contains 191 hymns, ascribed, with the exception of a few isolated ones, to sixteen poets of different families. Here again the hymns of each author are arranged on precisely the same principle as the
“family-books.” The eighth and ninth books, on the other hand, have a special character of their own. To the Siimaveda-sarphita, which, as wo shall see, consists almost entirely of verses chosen from the Rik for chanting purposes, these two mandalas have contributed a much larger proportion of verses than any of the others. Now, the hymns of the eighth book are ascribed to a number of different rishis, mostly belonging to the Kanva family. The productions of each poet are usually, though not always, grouped together, but no other principle of arrangement has yet been discovered. The chief peculiarity of this mandala, however, consists in its metres. Many of the hymns are composed in the form of stanzas, called pragátha (from gâ, “to sing”), consisting of two verses in the brihatî and satobrihatî metres; whence this book is usually known under the designation of Pragathah. The other metres met with in this book are likewise such as were evidently considered peculiarly adapted for singing, viz., the gdyaM (from gd, “to sing”) and other chiefly octosyllabic metres. It is not yet clear how to account for these peculiarities; but further research may perhaps show that either the Kanvas were a family of udgatars, or chanters, or that, before the establishment of a common system of worship for the Brahmanical community, they were accustomed to carry on their liturgical service exclusively by means of chants, instead of using the later form of mixed recitation and chant. One of the rishis of this family is called Pragatha Kanva; possibly this surname “pragatha” may be an old, or local, synonym of udgatar, or perhaps of the chief chanter, the so-called Prastotar, or precentor. The ninth mandala, on the other hand, consists entirely of hymns (114) addressed to Soma, the deified juice of the so-called “moon-plant” (Sarcostemma viminale, or Asclepias acida), and ascribed to poets of different families. They are called pavamdnt, “purificational,” because they were to be recited by the liotar while the juice expressed from the soma plants was clarifying. The first sixty of these hymns are arranged strictly according to their length, ranging from ten down to four verses; but as to the remaining hymns no such principle of arrangement is observable, except perhaps in smaller groups of hymns. One might, therefore, feel inclined to look upon that first section as the body of soma hymns set apart, at the time of the first redaction of the Samhita, for the special purpose of being used as pavamdnyah,— the remaining hymns having been added at subsequent redactions. It would not, however, by any means follow that all, or even any, of the latter hymns were actually later productions, as they might previously have formed part of the family collections, or might have been overlooked when the hymns were first collected. Other mandalas (viz., i., viii., and x.) still contain four entire hymns addressed to Soma, consisting together of 58 verses, of which only a single one (x. 25, 1) is found in the Samaveda-samliita, as also some 28 isolated verses to Soma, and four hymns addressed to Soma in conjunction with some other deity, which are entirely unrepresented in that collection.
The tenth mandala contains the same number of hymns (191) as the first, which it nearly equals in actual length. The hymns are ascribed to many rishis, of various families, some of whom appear already in the preceding mandalas. The traditional record is, however, less to be depended upon as regards this book, many names of gods and fictitious personages appearing in the list of its rishis. In the latter half of the book the hymns are clearly arranged according to the number of verses, in decreasing order,— occasional exceptions to this rale being easily adjusted by the removal of a few additional verses. A similar arrangement seems also to suggest itself in other portions of the book. This mandala stands somewhat apart from the preceding books, both its language and the general character of many of its hymns betraying a comparatively modern origin. In this respect it stands about on a level with the Atharvaveda-samliita, with which it is otherwise closely connected. Of some 1350 Rik-verses found in the Atharvan, about 550, or rather more than 40 per cent., occur in the tenth mandala. In the latter we meet with the same tendencies as in the Atharvan to metaphysical speculation and abstract conceptions of the deity on the one hand, and ,to superstitious practices on the other. But, although in its general appearance the tenth mandala is decidedly more modern than the other books, it contains not a few hymns which are little, if at all, inferior, both in respect of age and poetic quality, to the generality of Vedic hymns.
It has become the custom, after Roth’s example, to call the Rik-samhita (as well as the Atharvan) an historical collection, as compared with the Samlritas put together for purely ritualistic purposes. And indeed, though the several family collections which make up the earlier mandalas may originally have served ritual ends, as the hymnals of certain clans or tribal confederacies, and although the Saipliita itself, in its oldest form, may have been intended as a common prayer-book, so to speak, for the whole of the Brahmanical community, it is certain that in the stage in which it has been finally handed down it includes a certain portion of hymn material (and even some secular poetry) which could never have been used for purposes of religious service. It may, therefore, be assumed that the Rik-samhitâ contains all of the nature of popu- lar lyrics that was accessible to the collectors, or seemed to them worthy of being preserved. The question as to the exact period when the hymns were collected cannot be answered with any approach to accuracy. For many reasons, however, which cannot be detailed here, scholars have come to fix on the year 1000 B.C. as an approximate date for the collection of the Vedic hymns. From that time every means that human ingenuity could suggest was adopted to secure the sacred texts against the risks connected with oral transmission. But, as there is abundant evidence to show that even then not only had the text of the hymns suffered corruption, but their language had become antiquated to a considerable extent, and was only partly understood, the period during which the great mass of the hymns were composed must have lain considerably further back, and may very likely have extended over the earlier half of the second millenary, or from about 2000 to 1500 B.C.
As regards the people which raised for itself this imposing monument, the hymns exhibit it as settled in the regions watered by the mighty Sindhu (Indus), with its eastern and western tributaries. The land of the five rivers forms the central home of the Vedic people; but, while its advanced guard has already debouched upon the plains of the upper Gangâ and Yamuna, those who bring up the rear are still found loitering far behind in the narrow glens of the Kubhâ (Cabul) and Gomati (Gomal). Scattered over this tract of land, in hamlets and villages, the Vedic Aryas are leading chiefly the life of herdsmen and husbandmen. The numerous clans and tribes, ruled over by chiefs and kings, have still constantly to vindicate their right to the land but lately wrung from an inferior race of darker hue; just as in these latter days their kinsmen in the Far West are ever on their guard against the fierce attacks of the dispossessed red-skin. Not unfrequently, too, the light-coloured Aryas rage internecine war with one another,—as when the Bliaratas, with allied tribes of the Panjab, goaded on by the royal sage Visvamitra, invade the country of the Tritsu king Sudas, to be defeated in the “ten kings’ battle,” through the inspired power of the priestly singer Vasishtha. The priestly office has already become one of high social importance by the side of the political rulers, and to a large extent an hereditary profession; but it does not yet present the baneful features of an exclusive caste. The Aryan housewife shares with her husband the daily toil and joy, the privilege of worshipping the national gods, and even the triumphs of song-craft, some of the finest hymns being attributed to female seers.
The religious belief of the people consists in a system of natural symbolism, a worship of the elementary forces of nature, regarded as beings endowed with reason and power superior to those of man. In giving utterance to this simple belief, the priestly spokesman has, however, frequently worked into it his own speculative and mystic notions. Indra, the stout-hearted ruler of the cloud-region, receives by far the largest share of the devout attentions of the Vedic singer. His ever-renewed battle with the malicious demons of darkness and drought, for the recovery of the heavenly light and the rain-spending cows of the sky, forms an inexhaustible theme of spirited song. Next to him, in the affections of the people, stands Agni (ignis), the god of fire, invoked as the genial inmate of the Aryan household, and as the bearer of oblations, and mediator between gods and men. Indra and Agni are thus, as it were, the divine representatives of the king (or chief) and the priest of the Aryan community; and if, in the arrangement of the Sarnhitâ, the Brahmanical collectors gave precedence to Agni, it was but one of many avowals of their own hierarchical pretensions. Hence also the hymns to Indra are mostly followed, in the family collections, by those addressed to the Viśve Devâh (the “all-gods”) or to the JIaruts (Mavors, Mars), the warlike storm-gods and faithful companions of Indra, as the divine impersonation of the Aryan freemen, the viś or clan. But, while Indra and Agni are undoubtedly the favourite figures of the Vedic pantheon, there is reason to believe that these gods had but lately supplanted another group of deities who play a less prominent part in the hymns, viz., Father Heaven (Dyaus Pitar, Zϵύς πατήρ , Jupiter); Varuna (ουρανος), the allembracing firmament; Mitra (Zend. Mithra), the genial light of day; and Savitar (Saturnus) or Sfirya (ήϵλιος), the vivifying sun.
Of the Brahmanas that were handed down in the schools of the Bahvrichas (i.e., “possessed of many verses”), as the followers of the Rigveda are called, two have come down to us, viz., those of the Aitareyins and the Kaushitakins. The Aitarcya-brdhmana and the Kaushîtaki- (or Sânkhâyana-) brâhmana evidently have for their groundwork the same stock of traditional exegetic matter. They differ, however, considerably as regards both the arrangement of this matter and their stylistic handling of it, with the exception of the numerous legends common to both, in which the discrepancy is comparatively slight. There is also a certain amount of material peculiar to each of them. The Kaushîtaka is, upon the whole, far more concise in its style and more systematic in its arrangement—merits which would lead one to infer that it is probably the more modern work of the two. It consists of thirty chapters (adhyâya) ; while the Aitareya has forty, divided into eight books (or pentads, panchakd, of five chapters each). The last ten adhyayas of the latter work are, however, clearly a later addition,—though they must have already formed part of it at the time of Pânini (c. 400 B.C. ?), if, as seems probable, one of his grammatical sfitras, regulating the formation of the names of Brahmanas, consisting of thirty and forty adhyayas, refers to these two works. In this last portion occurs the well-known legend (also found in the Śânkhâyana-sûtra, but not in the Kaushitaki-brahmana) of Śunahśepa, whom his father Ajigarta sells and offers to slay, the recital of which formed part of the inauguration of kings. While the Aitareya deals almost exclusively with the Soma sacrifice, the Kaushitaka, in its first six chapters, treats of the several kinds of haviryajna, or offerings of rice, milk, ghee, &c., whereupon follows the Soma sacrifice in this way, that chapters 7-10 contain the practical ceremonial and 11-30 the recitations (śastra) of the hotar. Sayana, in the introduction to his commentary on the work, ascribes the Aitareya to the sage Mahidâsa Aitareya (son of Itara), also mentioned elsewhere as a philosopher; and it seems likely enough that this person arranged the Brahmana and founded the school of the Aitareyins. Regarding the authorship of the sister work we have no information, except that the opinion of the sage Kaushîtaki is frequently referred to in it as authoritative, and generally in opposition to the Paingya—the Brahmana, it would seem, of a rival school, the Paingins.
Each of these two Brahmanas is supplemented by a “forest-portion,” or Aranyaka. The Aitareyâranyaka. is not a uniform production. It consists of five books (âranyaka), three of which, the first and the last two, are of a liturgical nature, treating of the ceremony called mahâvrata or great vow. The second and third books, on the other hand, are purely speculative, and are also styled the Bahvricha-brâhmana-upanishad. Again, the last four chapters of the second book are usually singled out as the Aitareyopanishad, ascribed, like its Brahmana (and the first book), to Mahidasa Aitareya; and the third book is also referred to as the Samhitâ-upanishad. The fourth and fifth books are doubtless of later origin, being composed in sutra-form. Even native authorities exclude them from the sacred canon, and ascribe them to Asva layana and Saunaka respectively, of whom more further on. As regards the Kaushîtaki-dranyaka, our MS. material is not yet sufficient to enable us to determine its exact extent and arrangement. It would, however, seem that there are two different recensions of this treatise, a shorter one, consisting of nine, and a longer one of fifteen, adhy&yas. Four of these, variously placed at the beginning or end, or after the second adhyaya, constitute the highly interesting Kaushîtaki- (brâhmana·) upawishad, Text, commentary', and translation published by E. B. Cowell, in the Bibl . Ind. Also a translation bv F. Max Müller in Sacred Books of the East, vol. i. of which we possess two different recensions. The remaining portions of the Aranyaka seem to correspond, to some extent, to the ceremonial sections of the Aitareya-âranyaka.
Of Kalpa-sûtras, or manuals of sacrificial ceremonial, composed for the use of the liotar prjest, two different sets are in existence, the Âśvaldiyana- and the Sânkhâyana-sûtra. Each of these works follows one of the two Brahmanas of the Rik as its chief authority, viz., the Aitareya and Kaushitaka respectively. Both consist of a Śrauta - and a Grihya-sûtra. Âśvalâyana seems to have lived about the same time as Panini,—his own teacher, Saunaka, who completed the Rik-prâtiśâkhya, being probably intermediate between the great grammarian and Yaska, the author of the Nirukta. Saunaka himself is said to have been the author of a Srauta-sfitra (which was, however, more of the nature of a Brahmana) and to have destroyed it on seeing his pupil’s work. A Grihya-sfitra is still quoted under his name by later writers. The Asvalayana Srauta-sûtra consists of twelve, the Grihya of four, adhyayas.
Regarding Śankhayana still less is known; but he, too, was doubtless a comparatively modern writer, who, like Asvalâyana, founded a new school of ritualists. Hence the Kausliitaki-brahmana, adopted (and perhaps improved) by him, alsogoes under his name, just as the Aitareya is sometimes called Asvalayana-bralimana. The Śankhayana Śrauta-sûtra consists of eighteen adhyayas. The last two chapters of the work are, however, a later addition, while the two preceding chapters, on the contrary, present a comparatively archaic, brahmana-like appearance. The Grihya-sûtra consists of six chapters, the last two of which are likewise later appendages. The Sâmbavya Grihya-sûtra, of which a single MS. is at present known, seems to be closely connected with the preceding work. Prof. Buhler also refers to the Rigveda the Vâsishtha-dharmaśâstra, composed of mixed sûtras and couplets.
A few works remain to be noticed, bearing chiefly on the textual form and traditionary records of the Rik-samhita. In our remarks on the Vedangas, the Pratisakhyas have already been referred to as the chief repositories of sikslia or Vedic phonetics. Among these works the Rik-prâtiśâkhya occupies the first place. The original composition of this important work is ascribed to the same Sakalya from whom the vulgate recension of the (Sakala) Samhita takes its name. He is also said to be the author of the existing Pada-pâtha (i.e., the text-form in which each word is given unconnected with those that precede and follow it),—which report may well be credited, since the pada-text was doubtless prepared with a view to an examination, such as is presented in the Prâtisâkliya, of the phonetic modifications undergone by words in their syntactic combination. In the Prâtiśâkliya itself, Sâkalya’s father (or Sâkalya the elder) is also several times referred to as an authority on phonetics, though the younger Śâkalya is evidently regarded as having improved on his father’s theories. Thus both father and son probably had a share in the formulation of the rules of pronunciation and modification of Vedic sounds. The completion or final arrangement of the Rik-pratisakhya, in its present, form, is ascribed to Śaunaka, the reputed teacher of Asvalayana. Śaunaka, however, is merely a family name (“descendant of Śunaka”), which is given even to the rishi Gritsamada, to whom nearly the whole, of the second mandala of the Rik is attributed. How long after Śâkalya this particular Śaunaka lived we do not know; but some generations at all events would seem to lie between them, considering that in the meantime the Sakalas, owing doubtless to minor differences on phonetic points in the Samhitâ text, had split into several branches, to one of which, the Śaiśira (or Śaiśirîya) school, Śaunaka belonged. While Śâkalya is referred to both by Yaska and Panini, neither of these writers mentions Śaunaka. It seems nevertheless likely, for several reasons, that Panini was acquainted with Śaunaka’s work, though the point has by no means been definitively settled. The Rik-prâtiśâkhya is composed in mixed slokas, or couplets of various metres, a form of composition for which Śaunaka seems to have had a special predilection. Besides the Prâtiśâkhya, and the Grihya-sûtra mentioned above, eight other works are ascribed to Saunaka, viz., the Brihad-devatâ, an account, in epic ślokas, of the deities of the hymns, which supplies much valuable mythological information; the Rig-vidhâna, a treatise, likewise in epic metre, on the magic effects of Vedic hymns and verses; the Pdda-vidhâna, a similar treatise, apparently no longer in existence; and five different indexes or catalogues (anukramanî) of the rishis, metres, deities, sections (anuvâka), and hymns of the Rigveda. It is, however, doubtful whether the existing version of the Brihaddevata is the original one; and the Rigvidhana would seem to be much more modern than Saunaka’s time. As regards the Anukramanis, they seem all to have been composed in mixed ślokas; but, with the exception of the Anuvâkânukramanî, they are only known from quotations, having been superseded by the Sarvânukrama, or complete index, of Kâtyâyana. Both these indexes have been commented upon by Shadguruśishya, towards the end of the 12th century of our era.
B. Sâma-veda.— The term sâman, of uncertain derivation, denotes a solemn tune or melody to be sung or chanted to a rich or verse. The set chants (stotra) of the Soma sacrifice are as a rule performed in triplets, either actually consisting of three different verses, or of two verses which, by the repetition of certain parts, are made, as it were, to form three. The three verses are usually sung to the same tune; but in certain cases two verses sung to the same tune had a different saman enclosed between them. One and the same saman or tune may thus be sung to many different verses; but, as in teaching and practising the tunes the same verse was invariably used for a certain tune, the term “saman,” as well as the special technical names of samans, are not unfrequently applied to the verses themselves with which they were most commonly connected, just as one would quote the beginning of the text of an English hymn, when the tune usually sung to that hymn is meant. The Indian chant somewhat resembles the Gregorian or Plain Chant. Each saman is divided into five parts or phrases (prastâva or prelude, &c.), the first four of which are distributed between the several chanters, while the finale (nidhana) is sung in unison by all of them.
In accordance with the distinction between rich or text and sdman or tune, the saman-liymnal consists of two parts, viz., the Sdmaveda-samhitd, or collection of texts (rich) used for making up saman-hymns, and the Gana, or tune-books, song-books. The textual matter of the Samliita consists of somewhat under 1600 different verses, selected from the Rik-samhita, with the exception of some seventy-five verses, some of which have been taken from Khila hymns, whilst others which also occur in the Atharvan or Yajurveda, as well as such not otherwise found, may perhaps have formed part of some other recension of the Rik. The Sdmaveda-samhitd is divided into two chief parts, the pûrva- (first) and the uttara- (second) ârchika. The second part contains the texts of the saman-hymns, arranged in the order in which they are actually required for the stotras or chants of the various Soma sacrifices. The first part, on the other hand, contains the body of tune-verses, or verses used for practising the several samans or tunes upon,—the tunes themselves being given in the Grâma-geya-gâna (i.e., songs to be sung in the village), the tune-book specially belonging to the Purvarchika. Hence the latter includes all the first verses of those triplets of the second part which had special tunes peculiar to them, besides the texts of detached samans occasionally used outside the regular ceremonial, as well as such as were perhaps no longer required but had been so used at one time or other. The verses of the Purvârchika are arranged on much the same plan as the family-books of the Rik-samhita, viz., in three sections containing the verses addressed to Agni, Indra, and Soma (pava-mâna) respectively,—each section (consisting of one, three, and one adhyâyas respectively) being again arranged according to the metres. Hence this part is also called Chhandas- (metre) drchika. Over and above this natural arrangement of the two archikas, there is a purely formal division of the texts into six and nine prapathakas respectively, each of which, in the first part, consists of ten decades (dasat) of verses. We have two recensions of the Samhita, belonging to the Ranayaniya and Kauthuma schools, and differing but slightly from each other. Besides the six prapathakas (or five adhyayas) of the Purvarchika, some schools have an additional “forest” chapter, called the Âranyaka-samhitd, the tunes of which—along with others apparently intended for being chanted by anchorites—are contained in the Aranya-gdna. Besides the two tune-books belonging to the Purvarchika, there are two others, the Uha-gdna (“modification-songs ”) and Uhya-gdna, which follow the order of the Uttararchika, giving the several saman-hymns chanted at the Soma sacrifice, with the modifications the tunes undergo when applied to texts other than those for which they were originally composed. The Saman hymnal, as it has come down to us, has evidently passed through a long course of development. The practice of chanting probably goes back to very early times; but the question whether any of the tunes, as given in the Ganas, and which of them, can lay claim to an exceptionally high antiquity will perhaps never receive a satisfactory answer.
The title of Brdhmana is bestowed by the Chhandogas, or followers of the Samaveda, on a considerable number of treatises. In accordance with the statements of some later writers, their number was usually fixed at eight; but within the last few years one new Bralimana has been recovered, while at least two others which are found quoted may yet be brought to light in India. The majority of the Samaveda-brahmanas present, however, none of the characteristic features of other works of that class; but they are rather of the nature of sutras and kindred treatises, with which they probably belong to the same period of literature. Moreover, the contents of these works—as might indeed be expected from the nature of the duties of the priests for whom they were intended—are of an extremely arid and technical character, though they all are doubtless of some importance, either for the textual criticism of the Samhita or on account of the legendary and other information they supply. These works are as follows: —(1) the Tândya-mahâ- (or Praudha-) brâhmana, or “great” Bralimana,—usually called Panchavimśa-brâhmana from its “consisting of twenty-five” adhyâyas—which treats of the duties of the udgatars generally, and especially of the various kinds of chants; (2) the Shadvimsa, or “twenty-sixth,” being a supplement to the preceding work,—its last chapter, which also bears the title of Adbhuta-brâhmana, or “book of marvels,” is rather interesting, as it treats of all manner of portents and evil influences, which it teaches how to avert by certain rites and charms; (3) the Sâmavi-dhâna, analogous to the Rigvidhana, descanting on the magic effects of the various samans; (4) the Arsheya-brâhmana, a mere catalogue of the technical names of the samans in the order of the Pûrvârchika, known in two different recensions; (5) the Devatâ-dhyâya, which treats of the deities of the sâmans; (6) the Chhândo-gya-brâhmana, the last eight adhyâyas (3-10) of which constitute the important Chhândogyopanishad; (7) the Samhitopanishad-brâhmana, treating of various subjects connected with chants; (8) the Vamśa-brâhmana, a mere list of the Sâmaveda teachers. To ' these works has to be added the Jaiminîya- or Talavakâra-brâhmana, discovered by the late Dr A. Burnell, but as yet only known by a few extracts. From Prof. Whitney’s account of it, the work stands much on a level with the Brâhmanas of the Rik and Yajurveda. A portion of it is the well-known Kcna· (or Talavakâra-) upanishad, on the nature of Brahman, as the supreme of deities.
If the Sâmaveda has thus its ample share of Brâhmana-literature, though in part of a somewhat questionable character, it is not less richly supplied with siltra-treatises, some of which probably belong to the oldest works of that class. There are three Śrauta-sûtras, which attach themselves more or less closely to the Panchavimśa-brâhmana:—Masaka’s Ârsheya-kalpa, which gives the beginnings of the sâmans in their sacrificial order, thus supplementing the Ârsheya-brahmana, which enumerates their technical names; and the Śrauta-sûtras of Lâtyâyana and Drâhyâyana, of the Kauthuma and Raniiyaniya schools respectively, which differ but little from each other, and form complete manuals of the duties of the udgatars. Another sûtra, of an exegetic character, the Anupada-sûtra, likewise follows the Panchavimsa, the difficult passages of which it explains. Besides these, there are a con-sideralde number of sûtras and kindred technical treatises bearing on the prosody and phonetics of the sama-texts. The more important of them are—the Biktantra, apparently intended to serve as a Pratisakhya of the Samaveda; the Nidâna-sûtra, a treatise on prosody; the Pushpa- or Phulla-sútra, ascribed either to Gobhila or to Vararuchi, and treating of the phonetic modifications of the rich in the samans; and the Sâmatantra, a treatise on chants, of a very technical nature. Further, two Grihya-sûtras, belonging to the Samaveda, are hitherto known, viz., the Drâhyâ-yana-grihya, ascribed to Khâdira, and that of Gobhila (who is also said to have composed a śrauta-sûtra), with a supplement, entitled Karmapradîpa, by Katyayana. To the Samaveda seems further , to belong the Gautama-dharmaśâstra, composed in sûtras, and apparently the oldest existing compendium of Hindu law.
C. Yajur-veda.— This, the sacrificial Veda of the Adhvaryu priests, divides itself into an older and a younger branch, or, as they are usually called, the Black (krishna) and the White (śukla) Yajurveda. Tradition ascribes the foundation of the Yajurveda to the sage Vaiśampâvana. Of his disciples three are specially named, viz., Katha, Kalapin, and Yaska Paingi, the last of whom again is stated to have communicated the sacrificial science to Tittiri.
How far this genealogy of teachers may be authentic cannot now be determined; but certain it is that in accordance therewith we have three old collections of Yajus-texts, viz., the Kâthaka, the Kâlâpaka or Maitrâyanî Samhitâ, and the Taittirîya-samhitâ. The Kathaka and Kâlapaka are frequently mentioned together; and the author of the “great commentary” on Panini once remarks that these works were taught in every village. The Kathas and Kâlapas are often referred to under the collective name of Charakas, which apparently means “wayfarers” or itinerant scholars; but according to a later writer (Hemachandra) Charaka is no other than Vaiśimpâyana himself, after whom his followers would have been thus called. From the Kathas proper two schools seem early to have branched off, the Prâchya- (eastern) and Kapishthala-Kathas, the text-recension of the latter of whom lias recently been discovered in the Kapishthala-katha-samhitâ. The Kalapas also soon became subdivided into numerous different schools. Thus from one of Kalapin’s immediate disciples, Haridru, the Haridraviyas took their origin, whose text-recension, the Hâri-dravika, is quoted together with the Kathaka as early as in Yaska’s Nirukta; but we do not know whether it differed much from the original Kalapa texts. As regards the Taittiriya-saiphita, that collection, too, in course of time gave rise to a number of different schools, the text handed down being that of the Apastambas; while the contents of another recension, that of the Atrcyas, are known from their Anukramani, which has been preserved.
The four collections of old Yajus texts, so far known to us, while differing more or less considerably in arrangement and verbal points, have the main mass of their textual matter in common. This common matter consists of both sacrificial prayers (yajus) in verse and prose and exegetic or illustrative prose portions (brahmana). A prominent feature of the old Yajus texts, as compared with the other Vedas, is the constant intermixture of textual and exegetic portions. The Charakas and Taittiriyas thus do not recognize the distinction between Samhita and Brahmana in the sense of two separate collections of texts, but they have only a Samhitâ, or collection, which includes likewise the exegetic or
Brahmana portions. The Taittiriyas seem at last to have been impressed with their want of a separate Brahmana and to have set about supplying the deficiency in rather an awkward fashion: instead of separating from each other the textual and exegetic portions of their Samhitä, they merely added to the latter a supplement (in three books), which shows the same mixed condition, and applied to it the title of Taittirlya-brâhmanaa. But, though the main body of this work is manifestly of a supplementary nature, a portion of it may perhaps be old, and may once have formed part of the Samhita, considering that the latter con-, sists of seven ashtakas, instead of eight, as this term requires, and that certain essential parts of the ceremonial handled in the Brahmana are entirely wanting in the Saiphitä. Attached to this work is the Taittirtya-âranyaka, in ten books, the first six of which are of a ritualistic nature, while of the remaining books the first three (7-9) form the Taittirîya-panishad (consisting of three parts, viz., the Sikshavalli or Samhitopanishad, and the Anandavalli and Bhriguvalli, also called together the Varuni-upanishad), and the last book forms the Närayaniya- (or Yäjßiki-) upanishad.
The MaitrAyant Samhitâ, the identity of which with the original Kaläpaka has been proved pretty conclusively by Dr L. V. Schröder, who attributes the change of name of the Käläpa-Maiträyanîyas to Buddhist influences, consists of four books, attached to which is the Maitri- (or Maitrîyanî) upanishad. The KAthaka, on the other hand, consists of five parts, the last two of which, however, are perhaps later additions, containing merely the prayers of the hotar priest, and those used at the horse-sacrifice. There is, moreover, the beautiful Katha-or KAthaka-upanishad, which is also ascribed to the Atharvaveda, and in which Dr Röer would detect allusions to the Sänkhya philosophy, and even to Buddhist doctrines.
The defective arrangement of the Yajus texts was at last remedied by a different school of Adhvaryus, the Väjasaneyins. The reputed originator of this school and its text-recension is Yâjnavalkya Vâjasaneya (son of Väjasani). The result of the rearrangement of the texts was a collection of sacrificial mantras, the Vâjasaneyi-samhitâ, and a Brâhmana, the Śatapatha. On account of the greater lucidity of this arrangement, the Väjasaneyins called their texts the White (or clear) Yajurveda,—the name of Black (or obscure) Yajus being for opposite reasons applied to the Charaka texts. Both the Samhita and Brahmana of the Väjasaneyins have come down to us in two different recensions, viz., those of the MAdhyandina and KAnva schools; and we find besides a considerable number of quotations from a Väjasaneyaka, from which we cannot doubt that there must have been at least one other recension of the Satapatha-brâhmana. The difference between the two extant recensions is, on the whole, but slight as regards the subject-matter; but in point of diction it is quite sufficient to make a comparison especially interesting from a philological point of view. Which of the two versions may be the more original cannot as yet be determined; but the phonetic and grammatical differences will probably have to be accounted for by a geographical separation of the two schools rather than by a difference of age. In several points of difference the Känva recension agrees with the practice of the Rik-samhitä, and there probably was some connexion between the Yajus school of Känvas and the famous family of risliis of that name to which the eighth mandala of the Rik is attributed.
The VAjasaneyi-samhitâ consists of forty adhyâyas, the first eighteen of which contain the formulas of the ordinary sacrifices. The last fifteen adhyäyas are doubtless a later addition,—as may also be the case as regards the preceding seven chapters. The last adhyâya is commonly known under the title of Vajasaneyi-sarphita- (or Isâvâsya-) upanishad. Its object seems to be to point out the fruitlessness of mere works, and to insist on the necessity of man’s acquiring a knowledge of the supreme spirit. The sacrificial texts of the Adhvaryus consist, in about equal parts, of verses (rich) and prose formulas (yajus). The majority of the former occur likewise in the Rik-samhitâ, from which they were doubtless extracted. Not unfrequently, however, they show considerable discrepancies of reading, which may bo explained partly from a difference of recension and partly as the result of the adaptation of these verses to their special sacrificial purpose. As regards the prose formulas, though only a few of them are actually referred to in the Rik, it is quite possible that many of them may be of high antiquity.
The Satapatha-brAhmana, or Brahmana of a hundred paths, derives its name from the fact of its consisting of 100 lectures (adhyâya), which are divided by the Mâdhyandinas into fourteen, by the Kanvas into seventeen books (kânda). The first nine books of the former, corresponding to the first eleven of the Kânvas, and consisting of sixty adhyâyas, form a kind of running commentary on the first eighteen books of the Vâj.-Samhitâ; and it has been plausibly suggested by Prof. Weber that this portion of the Brâhmana may be referred to in the Maliabhasliya on Pan. iv. 2, 60, where a Satapatha and a Shashti-patha (i.e., “consisting of 60 paths ”) are mentioned together as objects of study, and that consequently it may at one time have formed an independent work. This view is also supported by the circumstance that of the remaining five books (10-14) of the Madhyandinas the third is called the middle one (madhyama); while the Kanvas apply the same epithet to the middlemost of the five books (12-16) preceding their last one. This last book would thus seem to be treated by them as a second supplement, and not without reason, as it is of the Upanishad order, and bears the special title of Brihad- (great) dranyaka. Except in books 6-10 (M.), which treat of the construction of fire-altars, and recognize the sage Sandilya as their chief authority, Yâjnavalkya’s opinion is frequently referred to in the Satapatha as authoritative. This is especially the case in the later books, part of the Brihad-aranyaka being even called Yajnavalkîya-kânda. As regards the age of the Satapatha, the probability is that the main body of the work is considerably older than the time of Panini, but that some of its latter parts were considered by Panini’s critic Kâtyâyana to be of about the same age as, or not much older than, Panini. Even those portions had probably been long in existence before they obtained recognition as part of the canon of the White Yajus.
The contemptuous manner in which the doctrines of the Charaka-adhvaryus are repeatedly animadverted upon in the Śatapatha betrays not a little of the odium theologicum on the part of the divines of the Vajasaneyins towards their brethren of the older schools. Nor was their animosity confined to mere literary warfare, but they seem to have striven by every means to gain ascendency over their rivals. The consolidation of the Brahmanical hierarchy and the institution of a common system of ritual worship, which called forth the liturgical Vedic collections, were doubtless consummated in the so-called Madhya-desa, or “middle country,” lying between the Sarasvati and the confluence of the Yamuna and Ganga; and more especially in its western part, the Kuru-kshetra, or land of the Kurus, with the adjoining territory of the Panchalas, between the Yamuna and Ganga. From thence the original schools of Vaidik ritualism gradually extended their sphere over the adjacent parts. The Charakas seem for a long time to have held sway in the western and north-western regions; while the Taittiriyas in course of time spread over the whole of the peninsula south of the Narmada (Nerbudda), where their ritual has remained preeminently the object of study till comparatively recent times. The Vajasaneyins, on the other hand, having first gained a footing in the lands on the lower Ganges, chiefly, it would seem, through the patronage of King Janaka of Videha, thence gradually worked their way westwards, and eventually succeeded in superseding the older schools north of the Vindhya, with the exception of some isolated places where even now families of Brahmans are met with which profess to follow the old Samhitas.
In Kalpa-sûtras the Black Yajurveda is particularly rich; but, owing to the circumstances just indicated, they are almost entirely confined to the Taittirîya schools. The only Srauta-sûtra of a Charaka school which has hitherto been recovered is that of the Manavas, a subdivision of the Maitrayaniyas. The Mânava-śrauta-sûtra seems to consist of eleven books, the first nine of which treat of the sacrificial ritual, while the tenth contains the Śulva-sûtra; and the eleventh is made up of a number of supplements (pari-sishta). The Mânava-grihya-sûtra is likewise in existence; but so far nothing is known, save one or two quotations, of a Mânava· dharma-sûtra, the discovery of which ought to solve some important questions regarding the development of Indian law. Of sûtra-works belonging to the Katlias, a single treatise, the Kathaka-grihya-sûtra, is known; while Dr Jolly considers the Vishnu-smriti, a compendium of law, composed in mixed sutras and slokas, to be nothing but a Vaishnava recast of the Kâthaka-dharma-sûtra, which seems no longer to exist. As regards the Taittiriyas, the Kal-pa-sûtra most widely accepted among them was that of Apastamba, to whose school, as we have seen, was also due our existing recension of the Taittirfya-samhita. The pastamba-kalpa-sûtra consists of thirty praśna (questions); the first twenty-five of these constitute the Srauta-sûtra; 26 and 27 the Grihya-sûtra; 28 and 29 the Dharma-sûtra; and the last the Sulva-sûtra. Prof. Buhler has tried to fix the date of this work somewhere between the 5th and 3rd centuries b.c. ; but it can hardly yet be considered as definitely settled. Considerably more ancient than this work are the Baudhd-yana-kalpa-sûtra, which consists of the same principal divisions, and the Bhâradvâja-sûtra, of which, however, only a few portions have as yet been discovered. The Hiranyakesi-sûtra, which is more modern than that of Apastamba, from which it differs but little, is likewise fragmentary; and several other Kalpa-sutras, especially that of Laugakshi, are found quoted. The recognized compendium of the White Yajus ritual is the Śrauta-sûtra of Katyayana, in twenty-six adhyâyas. This work is supplemented by a large number of secondary treatises, likewise attributed to Katyayana, among which may be mentioned the Charana-vyûha, a statistical account of the Vedic schools, which unfortunately has come down to us in a very unsatisfactory state of preservation. A manual of domestic rites, closely connected with Katyayana’s work, is the Kâtiya-grihya-sûtra, ascribed to Paraskara. To Kâtyâyana we further owe the Vâjasaneyi-prâtiśâkhya, Edited, with Uvata’s commentary, and a German translation, by A. Weber, Ind. Stud., iv. and a catalogue (anukra-manî) of the White Yajus texts. As regards the former work, it is still doubtful whether (with Weber) we have to consider it as older than Panini, or whether (with Goldstiicker and M. Muller) we are to identify its author with Panini’s critic. The only existing Prâtiśâkhya of the Black Yajus belongs to the Taittirîyas. Its author is unknown, and it confines itself entirely to the Taittirîya-samhitâ, to the exclusion of the Brâhmana and Âranyaka.
D. Atharva-veda.— The Atharvan was the latest of Vedic collections to be recognized as part of the sacred canon. That it is also the youngest Veda is proved by its language, which, both from a lexical and a grammatical point of view, marks an intermediate stage between the main body of the Rik and the Brahmana period. It is not less manifest from the spirit of its contents, which shows that the childlike trust of the early singer in the willingness of the divine agents to comply with the earnest request of their pious worshipper had passed away, and in its place had sprung up a superstitious fear of a host of malevolent powers, whose baleful wrath had to be deprecated or turned aside by incantations and magic contrivances. How far some lower form of worship, practised by the conquered race, may have helped to bring about this change of religious belief it would be idle to inquire; but it is far from improbable that the hymns of the Rik reflect chiefly the religious notions of the more intelligent and educated minority of the community, and that superstitious practices like those disclosed by the greater part of the Atharvan and a portion of the tenth book of the Rik had long obtained among the people, and became the more prevalent the more the spiritual leaders of the people gave themselves up to theosopliic and metaphysical speculations. Hence also verses of the Atharvaveda are not unfrequently used in domestic (grihya) rites, but very seldom in the Srauta ceremonial. But, even if these or such like spells and incantations had long been in popular use, there can be no doubt that by the time they were collected they must have adapted themselves to the modifications which the vernacular language itself had undergone in the mouths of the people.
This body of spells and hymns is traditionally connected with two old mythic priestly families, the Angiras and Atharvans, their names, in the plural, serving either singly or combined (Atharvangirasas) as the oldest appellation of the collection. Instead of the Atharvans, another mythic family, the Bhrigus, are similarly connected with the Angiras (Bhrigvangirasas) as the depositaries of this mystic science. The current text of the Atharva-samhitâ — apparently the recension of the Saunaka school —consists of some 750 different pieces, about five-sixths of which is in various metres, the remaining portion being in prose. The whole mass is divided into twenty books. The principle of distribution is for the most part a merely formal one, in books i.-xiii. pieces of the same or about the same number of verses being placed together in the same book. The next five books, xiv.- xviii., have each its own special subject:—xiv. treats of marriage and sexual union; xv., in prose, of the Vrâtya, or religious vagrant; xvi. consists of prose formulas of conjuration; xvii. of a lengthy mystic hymn; and xviii. contains all that relates to death and funeral rites. Of the last two books no account is taken in the Atharva-prâtiśâkhya, and they indeed stand clearly in the relation of supplements to the original collection. The eighteenth book evidently was the result of a subsequent gleaning of pieces similar to those of the earlier books, which had probably escaped the collectors’ attention; while the last book, consisting almost entirely of hymns to Indra, taken from the Rik-saiphita, is nothing more than a liturgical manual of the recitations and chants required at the Soma sacrifice.
The Atharvan has come down to us in a much less satisfactory state of preservation than any of the other Samhitas, and its interpretation, which offers considerable difficulties on account of numerous popular and out-of-the-way expressions, has so far received comparatively little aid from native sources. A commentary by the famous Vedic exegete Sayana, which has lately come to light in India, may, however, be expected to throw light on some obscure passages. Even more important is the discovery, some years ago, through the exertions of Sir William Muir, of an entirely different recension of the Atharva-sarphita, preserved in Kashmir. This new recension, supposed to be that of the Paippalada school, consists likewise of twenty books (kanda), but both in textual matter and in its arrangement it differs very much from the current text. A considerable portion of the latter, including unfortunately the whole of the eighteenth book, is wanting; while the hymns of the nineteenth book are for the most part found also in this text, though not as a separate book, but scattered over the whole collection. Possibly, therefore, this recension may have formed one of the sources whence the nineteenth book was compiled. The twentieth book is wanting, with the exception of a few of the verses not taken from the Rik. As a set-off to these shortcomings the new version offers, however, a good deal of fresh matter, amounting to about one-sixth of the whole. From the Mahâbhâshya and other works quoting as the beginning of the Atharva-samhitâ a verse that coincides with the first verse of the sixth hymn of the current text, it has long been known that at least one other recension must have existed; but owing to the defective state of the Kashmir MS. it cannot be determined whether the new recension (as seems likely) corresponds to the one referred to in those works.
The only Brâhmana of the Atharvan, the Gopatha-brâhmana, is probably one of the most modern works of its class. It consists of two parts, the first of which contains cosmogonic speculations, interspersed with legends, apparently taken from other Brahmanas, and general instructions on religious duties and observances; while the second part treats, in a very desultory manner, of various points of the sacrificial ceremonial.
The Kalpa-sûtras belonging to this Veda comprise both a manual of śrauta rites, the Vaitâna-sûtra, and a manual of domestic rites, the Kauśika-sûtra. The latter treatise is not only the more interesting of the two, but also the more ancient, being actually quoted in the other. The teacher Kausika is repeatedly referred to in the work on points of ceremonial doctrine. Connected with this Sutra are upwards of seventy Pariśishtas, or supplementary treatises, mostly in metrical form, on various subjects bearing on the performance of grihya rites. The last sûtra-work to be noticed in connexion with this Veda is the Śaunakîyâ Chaturâdhyâyikâ, being a Pratisakhya of the Atharva-samhitii, so called from its consisting of four lectures (adhyâya). Although Śaunaka can hardly be credited with being the actual author of the work, considering that his opinion is rejected in the only rule where his name appears, there is no reason to doubt that it chiefly embodies the phonetic theories of that teacher, which were afterwards perfected by members of his school. Whether this Śaunaka is identical with the writer of that name to whom the final redaction of the Sakala-prâtiśâkhya of the Rik is ascribed is not known; but it is worthy of note that on at least two points where Sakalya is quoted by Panini, the Chaturâdhyayikâ seems to be referred to rather than the Rik-prâtisâkhya. Śaunaka is quoted once in the Vâjasaneyi-prâtiśâkhya; and it is possible that Kâtyâyana had the Chaturadhyayikâ in view, though his reference does not quite tally with the respective rule of that work.
Another class of writings already alluded to as traditionally connected with the Atharvaveda are the numerous Upanishads which do not specially attach themselves to one or other of the Saiphitas or Brahmanas of the other Vedas. The Atharvana-upanishads, mostly composed in ślokas, may be roughly divided into two classes, viz., those of a purely speculative or general pantheistic character, treating chiefly of the nature of the supreme spirit, and the means of attaining to union therewith, and those of a sectarian tendency. Of the former category, a limited number —such as the Praśna, Mundaka, and Mândûkya-upanishads—have probably to be assigned to the later period of Vedic literature; whilst the others presuppose more or less distinctly the existence of some fully developed system of philosophy, especially the Vedanta or the Yoga. The sectarian Upanishads, on the other hand—identifying the supreme spirit either with one of the forms of Vishnu (such as the Narayana, Nrisiipha-tâpanîya, Râma-tâpanîya, Gopâla-tâpanîya), or with Siva (e.g. the Rudropanishad), or with some other deity—belong to post-Vedic times.
II. The Classical Period.
The classical literature of India is almost entirely a product of artificial growth, in the sense that its vehicle was not the language of the general body of the people, but of a small and educated class. It would scarcely be possible, even approximately, to fix the time when the literary idiom ceased to be understood by the common people. We only know that in the 3d century B.C. there existed several dialects in different parts of northern India which differed considerably from the Sanskrit; and Buddhist tradition, moreover, tells us that Gautama Sakyamuni himself, in the 6th century b.c., made use of the local dialect of Magadha (Behar) for preaching his new doctrine. Not unlikely, indeed, popular dialects, differing perhaps but slightly from one another, may have existed as early as the time of the Vedic hymns, when the Indo-Aryans, divided into clans and tribes, occupied the Land of the Seven Rivers; but such dialects must, at any rate, have sprung up after the extension of the Aryan sway and language over the whole breadth of northern India. Such, however, has been the case in the history of all nations; and there is no reason why, even with the existence of local dialects, the literary language should not have kept in touch with the people in India, as elsewhere, but for the fact that from a certain time that language remained altogether stationary, allowing the vernacular dialects more and more to diverge from it. Although linguistic research had been successfully carried on in India for centuries, the actual grammatical fixation of Sanskrit seems to have taken place about contemporaneously with the first spread of Buddhism; and indeed that popular religious movement undoubtedly exercised a powerful influence on the linguistic development of India.
A. Poetical Literature.
1. Epic Poems.— The Hindus, like the Greeks, possess two great national epics, the Pamayana and the Mahdhhdrata. The Râmâyana, i.e., poem “relating to Rama,” is ascribed to the poet Vâlmîki; and, allowance being made for later additions here and there, the poem indeed presents the appearance of being the work of an individual genius. In its present form it consists of some 24,000 ślokas, or 48,000 lines of sixteen syllables, divided into seven books.
(I.) King Daśaratha of Kosala, reigning at Ayodhya (Oudhi), has four sons born him by three wives, viz., Rama, Bharata, and the twins Lakshmana and Satrughna. Rama, by being able to bend an enormous bow, formerly the dreaded weapon of the god Rudra, wins for a wife Sita, daughter of Janaka, king of Videha (Tirhut). (II.) On his return to Ayodhya he is to be appointed heir-apparent (yuva-raja, i.e., juvenis rex); but Bharata’s mother persuades the king to banish his eldest son for fourteen years to the wilderness, and appoint her son instead. Separation from his favourite son soon breaks the king’s heart; whereupon the ministers call on Bharata to assume the reins of government. He refuses, however, and, betaking himself to Rama’s retreat on the Chitrakûta mountain (in Bundelkhund), implores him to return; but, unable to shake Rama’s resolve to complete his term of exile, he consents to take charge of the kingdom in the meantime. (III.) After a ten years’ residence in the forest, Rama attracts the attention of a female demon (Rakshasî); and, infuriated by the rejection of her advances, and by the wounds inflicted on her by Lakshmana, who keeps Rama company, she inspires her brother Ravana, demon-king of Ceylon, with love for Sita, in consequence of which the latter is carried off by him to his capital Lankâ. While she resolutely rejects the Rakshasa’s addresses, Rama sets out with his brother to her rescue. (IV.) After numerous adventures they enter into an alliance with Sugrîva, king of the monkeys; and, with the assistance of the monkey-general Hanumân, and Râvana’s own brother Vibhîshana, they prepare to assault Lankâ. (V.) The monkeys, tearing up rocks and trees, construct a passage across the straits— the so-called Adam’s Bridge, still designated Rama’s Bridge in India. (VI.) Having crossed over with his allies, Rama, after many hot encounters and miraculous deeds, slays the demon and captures the stronghold; whereupon he places Vibhishana on the throne of Lanka. To allay Rama’s misgivings as to any taint she might have incurred through contact with the demon, Sita now undergoes an ordeal by fire; after which they return to Ayodhya, where, after a triumphal entry, Rama is installed. (VII.) In the last book—probably a later addition—Rama, seeing that the people are not yet satisfied of Sita’s purity, resolves to put her away; whereupon, in the forest, she falls in with Valiniki himself, and at his hermitage gives birth to two sons. While growing up there, they are taught by the sage the use of the bow, as well as the Vedas, and the Ramayana as far as the capture of Lanka and the royal entry into Ayodhya. Ultimately Rama discovers and recognizes them by their wonderful deeds and their likeness to himself, and takes his wife and sons back with him.
The Mahâbhârata, i.e., “the great (poem or feud) of the Bharatas,” on the other hand, is not so much a uniform epic poem as a miscellaneous collection of epic poetry, consisting of a heterogeneous mass of legendary and didactic matter, worked into and round a central heroic narrative. The authorship of this work is aptly attributed to Vyasa, “the arranger,” the personification of Indian diaskeuasis. Only the bare outline of the leading story can here be given.
In the royal line of Hastinapura (the ancient Delhi)—claiming descent from the moon, and hence called the Lunar race (somavamsa), and counting among its ancestors King Bharata, after whom India is called Bharata-varsha (land of the Bharatas)—the succession lay between two brothers, when Dhritarashtra, the elder, being blind, had to make way for his brother Pandii. After a time the latter retired to the forest to pass the remainder of his life in hunting; and Dhritarashtra assumed the government, assisted by his uncle Bhishma, the Nestor of the poem. After some years Pandu died, leaving five sons, viz., Yudhishthira. Bhîma, and Arjuna by his chief wife Kunti, and the twins Nakula and Sahadeva by Madrî. The latter having burnt herself along with her dead husband, Kunti returned with the five princes to Hastinapura, and was well received by the king, who offered to have his nephews brought up together with his own sons, of whom he had a hundred, Duryodhana being the eldest. From their great-grandfather Kuril both families are called Kauravas ; but for distinction that name is more usually applied to the sons of Dhritarashtra, while their cousins, as the younger line, are named, after their father, Pândavas. The rivalry and varying fortunes of these two houses form the main plot of the great epopee. The Pându princes soon proved themselves greatly superior to their cousins; and Yudhishthira, the eldest of them all, was to be appointed heir-apparent. But, by his son’s advice, the king, good-natured but weak, induced his nephews for a time to retire from court and reside at a house where the unscrupulous Duryodhana meant to destroy them. They escaped, however, and passed some time in the forest with their mother. Here Draupadi, daughter of King Drupada, won by Arjuna in open contest, became the wife of the five brothers. On that occasion they also met their cousin, Kunti’s nephew, the famous Yâdava prince Krishna of Dvârakâ, who ever afterwards remained their faithful friend and confidential adviser. Dhritarâshtra now resolved to divide the kingdom between the two houses; whereupon the Pândavas built for themselves the city of Indraprastha (on the site of the modern Delhi). After a time of great prosperity, Yudhishthira, in a game of dice, lost everything to Duryodhana, when it was settled that the Pandavas should retire to the forest for twelve years, but should afterwards be restored to their kingdom if they succeeded in passing an additional year in disguise, without being recognized by anyone. During their forest-life they met with many adventures, among which may be mentioned their encounter with King Jayadratlia of Chedi, who had carried off Draupadi from their hermitage. After the twelfth year has expired they leave the forest, and, assuming various disguises, take service at the court of king Virata of Matsya. Here all goes well for a time till the queen’s brother Kichaka, a great warrior and commander of the royal forces, falls in love with
Draupadi, and is slain by Bhima. The Kauravas, profiting by Kichaka’s death, now invade the Matsyan kingdom, when the Pandavas side with king Virata, and there ensues, on the field of Kurukshetra, a series of fierce battles, ending in the annihilation of the Kauravas. Yudhishthira now at last becomes yuva-raja, and eventually king,—Dhritarashtra having resigned and retired with his wife and Kunti to the forest, where they soon after perish in a conflagration. Learning also the death of Krishna, Yudhishthira himself at last becomes tired of life and resigns his crown; and the five princes, with their faithful wife, and a dog that joins them, set out for Mount Meru, to seek admission to Indra’s heaven. Οn the way one by one drops off, till Yudhishthira alone, with the dog, reaches the gate of heaven; but, the dog being refused admittance, the king declines entering without him, when the dog turns out to be no other than the god of Justice himself, having assumed that form to test Yudhishtliira’s constancy. But, finding neither his wife nor his brothers in heaven, and being told that they are in the nether world to expiate their sins, the king insists on sharing their fate, when this, too, proves a trial, and they are all reunited to enjoy perpetual bliss.
Whether this story is partly based, as Lassen suggested, on historical events,—perhaps a destructive war between the neighbouring tribes of the Kurus and Pau-châlas,—or whether, as Dr A. Holtzmann thinks, its principal features go back to Indo-Germanic times, will probably never be decided. The complete work consists of upwards of 100,000 couplets,—its contents thus being nearly eight times the bulk of the Iliad and Odyssey combined. It is divided into eighteen books, and a supplement, entitled Harivamsa, or genealogy of the god Hari (Krishna-Vishnu). In the introduction, Vyasa, being about to dictate the poem, is made to say (i. 81) that so far he and some of his disciples knew 8800 couplets; and further on (i. 101) he is said to have composed the collection relating to the Bharatas (bharata-samhita), and called the Bharatam,, which, not including the episodes, consisted of 21,000 ślokas. Now, as a matter of fact, the portion relating to the feud of the rival houses constitutes somewhere between a fourth and a fifth of the work; and it is highly probable that this portion once formed a separate poem, called the Bhârata. But, whether the former statement is to be understood as implying the existence, at a still earlier time, of a yet shorter version of about one-third of the present extent of the leading narrative cannot now be determined. While some of the episodes are so loosely connected with the story as to be readily severed from it, others are so closely interwoven with it that their removal would seriously injure the very texture of the work. This, however, only shows that the original poem must have undergone some kind of revision, or perhaps repeated revisions. That such has indeed taken place, at the hand of Brahmans, for sectarian and caste purposes, cannot be doubted.
The earliest direct information regarding the existence of epic poetry in India is contained in a passage of Dion Chrysostom (c. 80 a.d.), according to which “even among the Indians, they say, Homer’s poetry is sung, having been translated by them into their own dialect and tongue;” and “the Indians are well acquainted with the sufferings of Priam, the lamentations and wails of Andromache and Hecuba, and the prowess of Achilles and Hector.” Now, although these allusions would suit either poem, they seem on the whole to correspond best to certain incidents in the Mahâbhârata, especially as no direct mention is made of a warlike expedition to a remote island for the rescue of an abducted woman, the resemblance of which to the Trojan expedition would naturally have struck a Greek becoming acquainted with the general outline of the Râmâyana. Whence Dion derived his information is not known; but as many leading names of the Mahabharata and even the name of the poem itself are already mentioned in Panini’s grammatical rules, it is not only certain that the Bharata legend must have been current in his time (?c. 400 b.c.), but most probable that it existed already in poetical form, as undoubtedly it did at the time of Patanjali, the author of the “great commentary” on Pânini (c. 150 b.c.). The great epic is also mentioned, both as Bhârata and Mahâbhârata, in the Grihya-sûtra of Âśvalâyana, whom Lassen supposes to have lived about 350 B.C. Nevertheless it must remain uncertain whether the poem was then already in the form in which we now have it, at least as far as the leading story and perhaps some of the episodes are concerned, a large portion of the episodical matter being clearly of later origin. It cannot, however, be doubted, for many reasons, that long before that time heroic song had been diligently cultivated in India at the courts of princes and among Kshatriyas, the knightly order, generally. In the Mahdâhârata itself the transmission of epic legend is in some way connected with the Sûtas, a social class which, in the caste-system, is defined as resulting from the union of Kshatriya men with Brâhmana women, and which supplied the office of charioteers and heralds, as well as (along with the Magadhas) that of professional minstrels. Be this as it may, there is reason to believe that, as Hellas had her άοιδοι who sang the κλϵα άνδρων , and Iceland her skalds who recited favourite sagas, so India had from olden times her professional bards, who delighted to sing the praises of kings and inspire the knights with warlike feelings. But if in this way a stock of heroic poetry had gradually accumulated which reflected an earlier state of society and manners, we can well understand why, after the Brâhmanical order of things had been definitely established, the priests should have deemed it desirable to subject these traditional memorials of Kshatriya chivalry and prestige to their own censorship, and adapt them to their own canons of religious and civil law. Such a revision would doubtless require considerable skill and tact; and if in the present version of the work much remains that seems contrary to the Brâhmanical code and pretensions— e.g., the polyandric union of Draupadî and the Pându princes—the reason probably is that such legendary, or it may be historical, events were too firmly rooted in the minds of the people to be tampered with; and all the clerical revisers could do was to explain them away as best they could. Thus the special point alluded to was represented as an act of duty and filial obedience, in this way, that, when Arjuna brings home his fair prize, and announces it to his mother, she, before seeing what it is, bids him share it with his brothers. Nay, it has even been suggested, with some plausibility, that the Brâhmanical editors have completely changed the traditional relations of the leading characters of the story. For, although the Pandavas and their cousin Krishna are constantly extolled as models of virtue and goodness, while the Kauravas and their friend Karna—a son of the sungod, born by Kunti before her marriage with Pându, and brought up secretly as the son of a Sûta—are decried as monsters of depravity, these estimates of the heroes’ characters are not unfrequently belied by their actions,— especially the honest Kama and the brave Duryodhana contrasting not unfavourably with the wily Krishna and the cautious and somewhat effeminate Yudhishthira. These considerations, coupled with certain peculiarities on the part of the Kauravas, suggestive of an original connexion of the latter with Buddhist institutions, have led Dr Holtzmann to devise an ingenious theory, viz., that the traditional stock of legends was first worked up into its present shape by some Buddhist poet, and that this version, showing a decided predilection for the Kuru party, as the representatives of Buddhist principles, was afterwards revised in a contrary sense, at the time of the
Brâhmanical reaction, by votaries of Vishnu, when the Buddhist features were generally modified into Śaivite tendencies, and prominence was given to the divine nature of Krishna, as an incarnation of Vishnu. The chief objection to this theory probably is that it would seem to make such portions as the Bhagavad-gîtâ (“song of the holy one”)—the famous theosophic episode in which Krishna, in lofty and highly poetical language, expounds the doctrine of faith (bhakti) and claims adoration as the incarnation of the supreme spirit—even more modern than many scholars may be inclined to admit as at all necessary, considering that at the time of Patanjali’s Mahâbhâshya the Krishna worship, as was shown by Prof. Bhandarkar, had already attained some degree of development. Of the purely legendary matter incorporated with the leading story not a little, doubtless, is at least as old as the latter itself. Some of these episodes—especially the well-known story of Nala and Damayanti, and the touching legend of Sâvitrî—form themselves little epic gems, of which any nation might be proud. There can be no doubt, however, that this great storehouse of legendary lore has received considerable additions down to comparatively recent times, and that, while its main portion is considerably older, it also contains no small amount of matter which is decidedly more modern than the Râmâyana.
As regards the leading narrative of the Râmâyana, while it is generally supposed that the chief object which the poet had in view was to depict the spread of Aryan civilization towards the south, Mr T. Wheeler has tried to show that the demons of Lankâ against whom Rama’s expedition is directed are intended for the Buddhists of Ceylon. Prof. Weber, moreover, from a comparison of Rama’s story with cognate Buddhist legends in which the expedition to Lanka is not even referred to, has endeavoured to prove that this feature, having been added by Vâlmîki to the original legend, was probably derived by him from some general acquaintance with the Trojan cycle of legends, the composition of the poem itself being placed by the same scholar somewhere about the beginning of the Christian era. Though, in the absence of positive proof, this theory, however ably supported, can scarcely be assented to, it will hardly be possible to put the date of the work farther back than about a century before our era; while the loose connexion of certain passages in which the divine character of Rama, as an avatar of Vishnu, is especially accentuated, raises a strong suspicion of this feature of Rama’s nature having been introduced at a later time.
A remarkable feature of this poem is the great variation of its text in different parts of the country, amounting in fact to several distinct recensions. The so-called Gauda recension, current in Bengal, which differs most of all, has been edited, with an Italian translation, by G. Gorresio; while the version prevalent in western India, and published at Bombay, has been made the basis for a beautiful poetical translation by Mr R. Griffith. This diversity has never been explained in a quite satisfactory way; but it was probably duo to the very popularity and wide oral diffusion of the poem. Yet another version of the same story, with, however, many important variations of details, forms an episode of the Mahâbhârata, the relation of which to Valmiki’s work is still a matter of uncertainty. To characterize the Indian epics in a single word though often disfigured by grotesque fancies and wild exaggerations, they are yet noble works, abounding in passages of remarkable descriptive power, intense pathos, and high poetic grace and beauty; and, while, as works of art, they are far inferior to the Greek epics, in some respects they appeal far more strongly to the romantic mind of Europe, namely, by their loving appreciation of natural beauty, their exquisite delineation of womanly love and devotion, and their tender sentiment of mercy and forgiveness.
2. Purdnas and Tantras.— The Purânas are partly legendary partly speculative histories of the universe, compiled for the purpose of promoting some special, locally prevalent form of Brahmanical belief. They are sometimes styled a fifth Veda, and may indeed in a certain sense be looked upon as the scriptures of Brahmanical India. The term purâna, signifying “old,” applied originally to prehistoric, especially cosmogonic, legends, and then to collections of ancient traditions generally. The existing works of this class, though recognizing the Brahmanical doctrine of the Trimûrti, or triple manifestation of the deity (in its creative, preservative, and destructive activity), are all of a sectarian tendency, being intended to establish, on quasi-historic grounds, the claims of some special god, or holy place, on the devotion of the people. For this purpose the compilers have pressed into their service a mass of extraneous didactic matter on all manner of subjects, whereby these works have become a kind of popular encyclopaedias of useful knowledge. It is evident, however, from a comparatively early definition given of the typical Purâna, as well as from numerous coincidences of the existing works, that they are based on, or enlarged from, older works of this kind, more limited in their scope, and probably of a more decidedly tritheistic tendency of belief. Thus none of the Purânas, as now extant, is probably much above a thousand years old, though a considerable proportion of their materials is doubtless much older, and may perhaps in part go back to several centuries before our era.
In legendary matter the Purânas have a good deal in common with the epics, especially the Mahâbhârata,— the compilers or revisers of both classes of works having evidently drawn their materials from the same fluctuating mass of popular traditions. They are almost entirely composed in epic couplets, and indeed in much the same easy flowing style as the epic poems, to which they are, however, geatly inferior in poetic value.
According to the traditional classification of these works, there are said to be eighteen (mahâ-, or great) Purânas, and as many Upa-purânas, or subordinate Purânas. The former are by some authorities divided into three groups of six, according as one or other of the three primary qualities of external existence—goodness, darkness (ignorance), and passion—is supposed to prevail in them, viz., the Vishnu, Ndradiya, Bhdgavata, Garuda, Padma, Varâha, — Matsya, Kûrma, Linga, Siva, Skanda, Agni,—Brahmânda, Brahma-vaivarta, Mârkandeya, Bhavishya, Vâmana, and Brahma-Purânas. In accordance with the nature of the several forms of the Trimurti, the first two groups chiefly devote themselves to the commendation of Vishnu and Siva respectively, whilst the third group, which would properly belong to Brahman, has been largely appropriated for the promotion of the claims of other deities, viz., Vishnu in his sensuous form of Krishna, Devi, Ganesa, and Surya. As Prof. Banerjea has shown in his preface to the M&r-kandeya, this seems to have been chiefly effected by later additions and interpolations. The insufficiency of the above classification, however, appears from the fact that it omits the Vdyu-pur&na, probably one of the oldest of all, though some MSS. substitute it for one or other name of the second group. The eighteen principal Puranas are said to consist of together 400,000 couplets. In Northern India the Vaishnava Purânas, especially the Bhâgavata and Vishnu, are by far the most popular. The Bhagavata was formerly supposed to have been composed by Vopadeva, the grammarian, who lived in the 13th century. It has, however, been shown that what he wrote was a synopsis of the Purâna, and that the latter is already quoted in a work by Ballala Sena of Bengal, in the lltli century.
From the little we know regarding the Upa-purdnas, their character does not seem to differ very much from that of the principal Puranas. One of them, the Brahmânda-purâna, contains, as an episode, the well-known Adhyâtma-Râmâyana, a kind of spiritualized version of Valmiki’s poem. Besides these two classes of works there is a large number of so-called Sthala-purânas, or chronicles recounting the history and merits of some holy “place” or shrine, where their recitation usually forms an important part of the daily service. Of much the same nature are the numerous Mâhâtmyas (literally “relating to the great spirit”), which usually profess to be sections of one or other Purana. Thus the Devî-mâhâtmya, which celebrates the victories of the great goddess Durgâ over the Asuras, and is daily read at the temples of that deity, forms a section, though doubtless an interpolated one, of the Markandeya-purâna.
The Tantras, which have to be considered as a later development of the sectarian Puranas, are the sacred writings of the numerous Sdktas, or worshippers of the female energy (sakti) of some god, especially the wife of Siva, in one of her many forms (Parvati, Devi, Kali, Bhavânî, Durgâ, &c.). This worship of a female representation of the divine power appears already in some of the Purânas; but in the Tantras it assumes quite a peculiar character, being largely intermixed with magic performances and mystic rites, partly, it would seem, of a grossly immoral nature. This class of writings does not appear to have been in existence at the time of Amarasimha (6th century); but they are mentioned in some of the Purfinas. They are usually in the form of a dialogue between Siva and his wife. Their number is very large; but they still await a critical examination at the hands of western scholars. Among the best known may be mentioned the Rudra yamala, Kulârnava, Syâmâ-rahasya, and Kâlikâ-tantra.
3. Modern Epics.— A new class of epic poems begin to make their appearance about the 5th or 6th century of our era, during a period of renewed literary activity which has been fitly called the Renaissance of Indian literature. These works differ widely in character from those that had preceded them. The great national epics, composed though they were in a language different from the ordinary vernaculars, had at least been drawn from the living stream of popular traditions, and were doubtless readily understood and enjoyed by the majority of the people. The later productions, on the other hand, are of a decidedly artificial character, and must necessarily have been beyond the reach of any but the highly cultivated. They are, on the whole, singularly deficient in incident and invention, their subject matter being almost entirely derived from the old epics. Nevertheless, these works are by no means devoid of merit and interest; and a number of them display considerable descriptive power and a wealth of genuine poetic sentiment, though unfortunately often clothed in language that deprives it of half its value. The simple heroic couplet has mostly been discarded for various more or less elaborate metres; and in accordance with this change of form the diction becomes gradually more complicated,—a growing taste for unwieldy compounds, a jingling kind of alliteration, or rather agnomination, and an abuse of similes marking the increasing artificiality of these productions.
The generic appellation of such works is kâvya, which, meaning “poem,” or the work of an individual poet (kavi), is already applied to the Râmâyana. Six poems of this kind are singled out by native rhetoricians as standard works, under the title of Mahâ-kâvya, or great poems. Two of these are ascribed to the famous dramatist Kalidasa, the most prominent figure of the Indian Renaissance, and truly a master of the poetic art. He is said to have been one of the nine literary “gems” at the court of Vikramaditya, now generally identified with King Vikramaditya Harslia of Ujjayinî (Ujjain or Oujein), who reigned about the middle of the 6th century, and seems to have originated the Vikramaditya era, reckoned from 56 B.C. Of the poets whose works have come down to us Kalidasa appears to be one of the earliest; but there can be little doubt that he was preceded in this as in other departments of poetic composition by many lesser lights, eclipsed by the sun of his fame, and forgotten. Of the six “great poems” named below the first two are those attributed to Kalidasa. (1) The Raghu-vamśa, or “race of Raghu,” celebrates the ancestry and deeds of Rama. The work, consisting of nineteen cantos, is manifestly incomplete; but hitherto no copy has been discovered of the six additional cantos which are supposed to have completed it. (2) The Kumâra-sambhava or “the birth of (the war-god) Kurnara” (or Skanda), the son of Śiva and Pârvatî, consists of eight cantos, the last of which has only recently been made public, being usually omitted in the MSS., probably on account of its amorous character rendering it unsuitable for educational purposes, for which the works of Kalidasa are extensively used in India. Nine additional cantos, which were published at the same time, have been proved to be spurious. Another poem of this class, the Nalodaya, or “rise of Nala,”—describing the restoration of that king, after having lost his kingdom through gambling,—is wrongly ascribed to Kalidasa, being far inferior to the other works, and of a much more artificial character. (3) The Kirâtârjunîya, , or combat between the Pândava prince Arjuna and the god Siva, in the guise of a Kirata or wild mountaineer, is a poem in eighteen cantos, by Bhâravi, probably a contemporary of Kalidasa, being mentioned, together with him in an inscription dated 634 a.d. (4) The Śiśupâla-badha, or slaying of Siśupâla, who, being a prince of Chedi, reviled Krishna, who had carried off his intended wife, and was killed by him at the inauguration sacrifice of Yudhishthira, is a poem consisting of twenty cantos, attributed to Mâgha, whence it is also called Mâghakâvya. (5) The Râvana-badka, or “slaying of Ravana,” more commonly called Bhatti-kâvya, to distinguish it from other poems (especially one by Pravarasena), likewise bearing the former title, was composed for the practical purpose of illustrating the less common grammatical forms and the figures of rhetoric and poetry. In its closing couplet it professes to have been written at Vallabhi, under Śrîdharasena, but, several princes of that name being mentioned in inscriptions as having ruled there in the 6th and 7th centuries, its exact date is still uncertain. Bhatti, apparently the author’s name, is usually identified with the well-known grammarian Bhartrihari, whose death Prof. M. Muller, from a Chinese statement, fixes at 650 a.d., while others make him Bhartrihari’s son. (6) The Naishadhîya, or Naishadha-charita, the life of Nala, king of Nishadha, is ascribed to Sri-Harsha (son of Hira), who is supposed to have lived in the latter part of the 12th century. A small portion of the simple and noble episode of the Mahâbhârata is here retold in highly elaborate and polished stanzas, and with a degree of lasciviousness which (unless it be chiefly due to the poet’s exuberance of fancy) gives a truly appalling picture of social corruption. Another highly esteemed poem, the Râghava-pândavîya, composed by Kaviraja (“king of poets”),—whose date is uncertain, though some scholars place him later than the 10th century,—is characteristic of the trifling uses to which the poet’s art was put. The well-turned stanzas are so ambiguously worded that the poem may be interpreted as relating to the leading story of either the Râmâyana or the Mahâbhârata.
A still more modern popular development of these artificial poems are the numerous so-called Champûs, being compositions of mixed verse and prose. As specimens of such works may be mentioned the Champû-bhârata in twelve cantos, by Ananta Bhatta, and the Champû-râmâyana or Bhoja-champû, in five books, by Bhojarâja (or Vidarbharâja) Pandita, being popular abstracts of the two great epics.
Very similar in character to the artificial epics are the panegyrics, composed by court poets in honour of their patrons. Such productions were probably very numerous; but only two of any special interest are hitherto known, viz., the Srî-Harsha~charita, composed in ornate prose, by Bana, in honour of Siläditya Harshavardhana (c. 610-650 a.d.) of Kanyakubja (Kanauj), and the Vikramânka - charita, written by the Kashmir poet Bilhana, about 1085, in honour of his patron, the Châlukya king Vikramâditya of Kalyâna, regarding the history of whose dynasty the work supplies much valuable information. In this place may also be mentioned, as composed in accordance with the Hindu poetic canon, the Râja-tarangint, or chronicle of the kings of Kashmir, the only important historical work in the Sanskrit language, though even here considerable allowance has to be made for poetic licence and fancy. The work was composed by the Kashmirian poet Kalhana, about 1150, and was afterwards continued by three successive supplements, bringing down the history of Kashmir to the time of the emperor Akbar. Unfortunately the two existing editions were prepared from very imperfect MS. materials; but Dr Buhler’s discovery of new MSS., as well as of some of the works on which Kalhana’s poem is based, ought to enable the native scholar (Prof. Bhaudarkar) who has undertaken a new edition to put the text in a more satisfactory condition.
4. The Drama.— The early history of the Indian drama is enveloped in obscurity. The Hindus themselves ascribe the origin of dramatic representation to the sage Bharata, who is fabled to have lived in remote antiquity, and to have received this science directly from the god Brahman, by whom it was extracted from the Veda. The term bharata—(?) i.e., one who is kept, or one who sustains (a part)—also signifies “an actor ”; but it is doubtful which of the two is the earlier,—the appellative use of the word, or the notion of an old teacher of the dramatic art bearing that name. On the other hand, there still exists an extensive work, in epic verse, on rhetoric and dramaturgy, entitled Nâtya-śâstra, and ascribed to Bharata. But, though this is probably the oldest theoretic work on the subject that has come down to us, it can hardly be referred to an earlier period than several centuries after the Christian era. Not improbably, however, this work, which presupposes a fully developed scenic art, had an origin similar to that of some of the metrical law-books, which are generally supposed to be popular and improved editions of older sûtra-works. We know that such treatises existed at the time of Panini, as he mentions two authors of Nata-sûtras, or “rules for actors,” viz., Silalin and Krisasva. Now, the words nata and nâtya— as well as nâtaka, the common term for “drama ”—being derived from the root nat (nart) “to dance,” seem to point to a pantomimic or choral origin of the dramatic art. It might appear doubtful, therefore, in the absence of any clearer definition in Panini’s grammar, whether the “actors’ rules” he mentions did not refer to mere pantomimic performances. Fortunately, however, Patanjali, in his “great commentary,” speaks of the actor as singing, and of people going “to hear the actor.” Nay, he even mentions two subjects, taken from the cycle of Vishnu legends—viz., the slaying of Kamsa (by Krishna) and the binding of Bali (by Vishnu)—which were represented on the stage both by mimic action and declamation. Judging from these allusions, theatrical entertainments in those days seem to have been very much on a level with our old religious spectacles or mysteries, though there may already have been some simple kinds of secular plays which Patanjali had no occasion to mention. It is not, however, till some five or six centuries later that we meet with the first real dramas, which mark at the same time the very culminating point of Indian dramatic composition. In this, as in other departments of literature, the earlier works have had to make way for later and more perfect productions; and no trace now remains of the intermediate phases of development.
Here, however, the problem presents itself as to whether the existing dramatic literature has naturally grown out of such popular religious performances as are alluded to by Patanjali, or whether some foreign influence has intervened at some time or other and given a different direction to dramatic composition. The question has been argued both for and against the probability of Greek influence; but it must still be considered as sub judice. There are doubtless some curious points of resemblance between the Indian drama and the Modern Attic (and Roman) comedy, viz., the prologue, the occasional occurrence of a token of recognition, and a certain correspondence of characteristic stage figures (especially the Vidûshaka, or jocose companion of the hero, presenting a certain analogy to the servus of the Roman stage, as does the Vita of some plays to the Roman parasite)—for which the assumption of some acquaintance with the Greek comedy on the part of the earlier Hindu writers would afford a ready explanation. On the other hand, the differences between the Indian and Greek plays are perhaps even greater than their coincidences, which, moreover, are scarcely close enough to warrant our calling in question the originality of the Hindus in this respect. Certain, however, it is that, if the Indian poets were indebted to Greek playwrights for the first impulse in dramatic composition, in the higher sense, they have known admirably how to adapt the Hellenic muse to the national genius, and have produced a dramatic literature worthy to be ranked side by side with both the classical and our own romantic drama. It is to the latter especially that the general character of the Indian play presents a striking resemblance, much more so than to the classical drama. The Hindu dramatist has little regard for the “unities” of the classical stage, though he is hardly ever guilty of extravagance in his disregard of them. The dialogue is invariably carried on in prose, plentifully interspersed with those neatly turned lyrical stanzas in which the Indian poet delights to depict some natural scene, or some temporary physical or mental condition. The most striking feature of the Hindu play, however, is the mixed nature of its language. While the hero and leading male characters speak Sanskrit, women and inferior male characters use various Prakrit dialects. As regards these dialectic varieties, it can hardly be doubted that at the time when they were first employed in this way they were local vernacular dialects; but in the course of the development of the scenic art they became permanently fixed for special dramatic purposes, just as the Sanskrit had, long before that time, become fixed for general literary purposes. Thus it would happen that these Prakrit dialects, having once become stationary, soon diverged from the spoken vernaculars, until the difference between them was as great as between the Sanskrit and the Prakrits. As regards the general character of the dramatic Prakrits, they are somewhat more removed from the Sanskrit type than the Pali, the language of the Buddhist canon, which again is in a rather more advanced state than the language of the Asoka inscriptions (c. 250 b.c.). And, as the Buddhist sacred books were committed to writing about 80 B.C., the state of their language is attested for that period at latest; while the grammatical fixation of the scenic Prakrits has probably to be referred to the early centuries of our era.
The existing dramatic literature is not very extensive. The number of plays of all kinds of any literary value will scarcely amount to fifty. The reason for this paucity of dramatic productions doubtless is that they appealed to the tastes of only a limited class of highly cultivated persons, and were in consequence but seldom acted. As regards the theatrical entertainments of the common people, their standard seems never to have risen much above the level of the religious spectacles mentioned by Patanjali. Such at least is evidently the case as regards the modern Bengâli jâtras— described by Wilson as exhibitions of some incidents in the youthful life of Krishna, maintained in extempore dialogue, interspersed with popular songs—as well as the similar râsas of the western provinces, and the rough and ready performances of the bhanrs, or professional buffoons. Of the religious drama Sanskrit literature offers but one example, viz., the famous Gîtagovinda, composed by Jayadeva in the 12th century. It is rather a mytho-lyrical poem, which, however, in the opinion of Lassen, may be considered as a modern and refined specimen of the early form of dramatic composition. The subject of the poem is as follows:—Krishna, while leading a cowherd’s life in Vrin-davana, is in love with Radha, the milkmaid, but has been faithless to her for a while. Presently, however, he returns to her
“whose image has all the while lingered in his breast,” and after much earnest entreaty obtains her forgiveness. The emotions appropriate to these situations are expressed by the two lovers and a friend of Radha in melodious and passionate stanzas of great poetic beauty. Like the Song of Solomon, the Gîtagovinda, moreover, is supposed by the Hindu commentators to admit of a mystic interpretation; for, “as Krishna, faithless for a time, discovers the vanity of all other loves, and returns with sorrow and longing to his own darling Radha, so the human soul, after a brief and frantic attachment to objects of sense, burns to return to the God from whence it came” (Griffith).
The Mrichchhakatikâ, or “earthen toy-cart,” is by tradition placed at the head ol the existing dramas; and a certain clumsiness of construction seems indeed to justify this distinction. According to several stanzas in the prologue, the play was composed by a king Sudraka, who is there stated to have, through Siva’s favour, recovered his eyesight, and, after seeing his son as king, to have died at the ripe age of a hundred years and ten days. According to the same stanzas, the piece was enacted after the king’s death; but it is probable that they were added for a subsequent performance. In Bana’s novel Kâdambarî (c. 630 a.d.), a king Śûdraka, probably the same, is represented as having resided at Bidisa (Bhilsa)—some 130 miles east of Ujjayinî (Ujjain), where the scene of the play is laid. Charudatta, a Brahman merchant, reduced to poverty, and Vasantasenâ, an accomplished courtezan, meet and fall in love with each other. This forms the main story, which is interwoven with a political underplot, resulting in a change of dynasty. The connexion between the two plots is effected by means of the king’s rascally brother-in-law, who pursues Vasantasena with his addresses, as well as by the part of the rebellious cowherd Aryaka, who, having escaped from prison, finds shelter in the hero’s house. The wicked prince, on being rejected, strangles Vasantasena, and accuses Charudatta of having murdered her; but, just as the latter is about to be executed, his lady love appears again on the scene. Meanwhile Aryaka has succeeded in deposing the king, and, having himself mounted the throne of Ujjain, he raises Vasantasena to the position of an honest woman, to enable her to become the wife of Charudatta. The play is one of the longest, consisting of not less than ten acts, some of which, however, are very short. The interest of the action is, on the whole, well sustained; and, altogether, the piece presents a vivid picture of the social manners of the time.
In Kalidasa (? c.. 550 a.d.) the dramatic art attained its highest point of perfection. From this accomplished poet we have three well-constructed plays, abounding in stanzas of exquisite tenderness and fine descriptive passages, viz., the two well-known mytho-pastoral dramas, Śakuntalâ in seven and Vikramorvaśi in five acts, and a piece of court intrigue, distinctly inferior to the other two, entitled Mâlavikâgnimitra, in five acts. King Agnimitra, who has two wives, falls in love with Malavika, maid to the first queen. His wives endeavour to frustrate their affection for each other, but in the end Malavika turns out to be a princess by birth, and is accepted by the queens as their sister.
In the prologue to this play, Kalidasa mentions Bhasa and Saumilla as his predecessors in dramatic composition. Of the former poet some six or seven stanzas have been gathered from anthologies by Prof. Aufrecht, who has also brought to light one fine stanza ascribed to Ramila and Saumila.
Sri Harslia-deva—whom Dr F. Hall has proved to be identical with King Siladitya Harshavardhana of Kanyakubja (Kanauj), who reigned in the first half of the 7th century—has three plays attributed to him. Most likely, however, he -did not write any of them himself, but they were only dedicated to him as the patron of their authors. Such at least seems to have been the case as regards the Ratnâvalî, which was probably composed by Bana. It is a graceful drama of genteel domestic manners, in four acts, of no very great originality, the author having been largely indebted to Kalidasa’s plays. Ratnavali, a Ceylon princess, is sent by her father to the court of King Vatsa to become his second wife. She suffers shipwreck, but is rescued and received into Vatsa’s palace as one of queen Vasavadatta’s attendants. The king falls in love with her, and the queen tries to keep them apart from each other; but, on learning the maiden’s origin, she becomes reconciled, and recognizes her as a “sister.” According to H. H. Wilson, “the manners depictured are not influenced by lofty principle or profound reflexion, but they are mild, affectionate, and elegant. It may be doubted whether the harams of other eastern nations, either in ancient or modern times, would afford materials for as favourable a delineation.” Very similar in construction, but distinctly inferior, is the Priyadarśikâ, in four acts, lately published in India, having for its plot another amour of the same king. The scene of the third play, the Nâgânanda, or “joy of the serpents” (in five acts), on the other hand, is laid in semi-divine regions. Jimûtavâhana, a prince of the Vidyâdharas, imbued with Buddhist principles, weds Malayavatî, daughter of the king of the Siddhas, a votary of Gauri (Siva’s wife). But, learning that Garuda, the mythic bird, is in the habit of consuming one snake daily, he resolves to offer himself to the bird as a victim, and finally succeeds in converting Garuda to the principle of ahimsâ, or abstention from doing injury to living beings; but he himself is about to succumb from the wounds he has received, when, through the timely intervention of the goddess Gauri, he is restored to his former condition. The piece seems to have been intended as a compromise between Brahmanical (Saiva) and Buddhist doctrines, being thus in keeping with the religious views of king Harsha, who, as we know from Hwen-tsang, favoured Buddhism, but was very tolerant to Brahmans. It begins with a benedictory stanza to Buddha, and concludes with one to Gauri. The author is generally believed to have been a Buddhist, but it is more likely that he was a Saiva Brahman, possibly Bana himself. Nay, one might almost feel inclined to take the hero’s self-sacrifice in favour of a Naga as a travesty of Buddhist principles.
Bhavabhûti, surnamed Srî-kantha, “whose throat is beauty (eloquence),” was a native of Padmapura in the Vidarbha country (the Berars), being the son of the Brahman Nilakantha, and his wife Jatukarni. He is said to have passed his literary life at the court of Yasovarman of Kanauj, who is supposed to have reigned in the latter part of the 7th and beginning of the 8th century. Bhavabhuti was the author of three plays, two of which, the Mahâvîracharita (“life of the great hero”) and the Uttararâmacharita (“later life of Râma”), in seven acts each, form together a dramatized version of the story of the Râmâyana. The third, the Mâlatî-mâdhava, is a domestic drama in ten acts, representing the fortunes of Madhava and Malati, the son and daughter of two ministers of neighbouring kings, who from childhood have been destined for each other, but, by the resolution of the maiden’s royal master to marry her to an old and ugly favourite of his, re for a while threatened with permanent separation. The action of the play is full of life, and abounds in stirring, though sometimes improbable, incidents. The poet is considered by native pandits to be not only not inferior to Kalidasa, but even to have surpassed him in his Uttararâmacharita. But, though he ranks deservedly high as a lyric poet, he is far inferior to Kalidasa as a dramatic artist Whilst the latter delights in depicting the gentler feelings and tender emotions of the human heart and the peaceful scenes of rural life, the younger poet finds a peculiar attraction in the sterner and more imposing aspects of nature and the human character. Bhavabhûti’s language, though polished and felicitous, is elaborate and artificial compared with that of Kalidasa, and his genius is sorely shackled by a slavish adherence to the arbitrary rules of dramatic theorists.
Bhatta Narayana, surnamed Mrigaraja or Simha, “the lion,” the author of the Venisamhâra (“the seizing by the braid of hair ”), is a poet of uncertain date. Tradition makes him one of the five Kanauj Brahmans whom king Adisura of Bengal, desirous of establishing the pure Vaishnava doctrine, invited to his court, and from whom the modern Bengali Brahmans are supposed to be descended. The date of that event, however, is itself doubtful; while a modern genealogical work fixes it at 1077, Lassen refers it to the beginning of the 7th century and Grill to the latter part of the 6th. If it could be proved that the poet is identical with the Narayana whom Bana (c. 630) mentions as being his friend, the question would be settled in favour of the earlier calculations. The play, consisting of six acts, is founded on the story of the Mahâbhârata, and takes its title from the insult offered to Draupadi by one of the Kaurava princes, who, when she had been lost at dice by Yudhishthira, dragged her by the hair into the assembly. The piece is composed in a style similar to that of Bhavabhûti’s plays, though less polished, and inferior to them in dramatic construction and poetic merit.
The Hanuman-nâtaka is a dramatized version of the story of Rama, interspersed with numerous purely descriptive poetic passages. It consists of fourteen acts, and on account of its length is also called the Mahâ-nâtaka, or great drama. Tradition relates that it was composed by Hanuman, the monkey general, and inscribed on rocks; but, Valmiki, the author of the Râmâyana, being afraid lest it might throw his own poem into the shade, Hanuman allowed him to cast his verses into the sea. Thence fragments were ultimately picked up by a merchant, and brought to King Bhoja, who directed the poet Damodara Miśra to put them together, and fill up the lacunae; whence the present composition originated. Whatever particle of truth there may be in this story, the “great drama” seems certainly to be the production of different hands. “The language,” as Wilson remarks, “is in general very harmonious, but the work is after all a most disjointed and nondescript composition, and the patchwork is very glaringly and clumsily put together.” It is nevertheless a work of some interest, as compositions of mixed dramatic and declamatory passages of this kind may have been common in the early stages of tho dramatic art. The connexion of the poet with King Bhoja, also confirmed by the Bhoja-prabandha, would bring the composition, or final redaction, down to about the 10th or 11th century. There are, however, two different recensions of the work, a shorter one commented upon by Molianadasa, and a longer one arranged by Madhusûdana. A Damodara Gupta is mentioned as having lived under Jayapida of Kashmir (755-86); but this can scarcely be the same author.
The Mudrârâkshasa, or “Râkshasa (the minister) with the signet,” is a drama of political intrigue, in seven acts, partly based on historical events, the plot turning on the reconciliation of Rakshasa, the minister of the murdered king Nanda, with the hostile party, consisting of prince Chandragupta (the Greek Sandrocottus, 315-291 B.C.), who succeeded Nanda, and his minister Chanakya. The plot is developed with considerable dramatic skill, in vigorous, if not particularly elegant, language. The play was composed by Viśâkhadatta, prior, at any rate, to the 11th century, but perhaps as early as the 7th or 8th century, as Buddhism is referred to in it in rather complimentary terms.
The Prabodha-chandrodaya, or “tho moon-rise of intelligence,” composed by Krishnamisra about the 12th century, is an allegorical play, in six acts, the dramatis personas of which consist entirely of abstract ideas, divided into two conflicting hosts.
Of numerous inferior dramatic compositions we may mention as the best—the Anarghya-rAghava, by Murari; the Bâla-râmâyana, one of six plays (three of which are known) by Rajasekhara; and the Prasanna-râghava, by Jayadeva, the author of the rhetorical treatise Chandrâloka. Abstracts of a number of other pieces are given in H. H. Wilson’s Hindu Theatre, the standard work on this subject. The dramatic genius of the Hindus may be said to have exhausted itself about the 14th century.
5. Lyrical, Descriptive, and Didactic Poetry. —We have already alluded to the marked predilection of the mediaeval Indian poet for depicting in a single stanza some peculiar physical or mental situation. The profane lyrical poetry consists chiefly of such little poetic pictures, which form a prominent feature of dramatic compositions. Numerous poets and poetesses are only known to us through such detached stanzas, preserved in native anthologies or manuals of rhetoric. Thus the Saduktikarnâmrita, or “ear-ambrosia of good sayings,” an anthology compiled by Srîdhara Dasa in 1205, contains verses by four hundred and forty-six different writers; while the Sârngadhara-paddhati, another anthology, of the 14th century, contains some 6000 verses culled from two hundred and sixty-four different writers and works. These verses are either of a purely descriptive or of an erotic character; or they have a didactic tendency, being intended to convey, in an attractive and easily remembered form, some moral truth or useful counsel. An excellent specimen of a longer poem, of a partly descriptive partly erotic character, is Kâlidâsa’s Megha-dûta, or “cloud messenger,” in which a banished Yaksha (demi god) sends a love-message across India to his wife in the Himalaya, and describes, in verse-pictures, the various places and objects over which the messenger, a cloud, will have to sail in his airy voyage. This little masterpiece has called forth a number of more or less successful imitations, such as Lakshmidasa’s Suka-sandesa, or “parrot-message,” lately edited by the maharaja of Travancore. Another much admired descriptive poem by Kalidasa is the Ritu-samhâra, or “collection of the seasons,” in which the attractive features of the six seasons are successively set forth.
As regards religious lyrics, the fruit of sectarian fervour, a large collection of hymns and detached stanzas, extolling some special deity, might be made from Puranas and other works. Of independent productions of this kind only a few of the more important can be mentioned here. Śankaracharya, the great Vedantist, who probably lived in the 7th century, is credited with several devotional poems, especially the Ananda-laharî, or “wave of joy,” a hymn of 103 stanzas, in praise of the goddess Parvati. The Sûrya-sataka, or century of stanzas in praise of Śûrya, the sun, is ascribed to Mayûra, the contemporary (and, according to a tradition, the father-in-law) of Bana (in the early part of the 7 th century). The latter poet himself composed the Chandikâstotra, a hymn of 102 stanzas, extolling Siva’s consort. The Khandapraśasti, a poem celebrating the ten avataras of Vishnu, is ascribed to no other than Hanuman, the monkey general, himself. Jayadeva’s beautiful poem Gîtagovinda, which, like most productions concerning Krishna, is of a very sensuous character, has already been referred to.
The particular branch of didactic poetry in which India is especially rich is that of moral maxims, expressed in single stanzas or couplets, and forming the chief vehicle of the Nîti-śâstra or ethic science. Excellent collections of such aphorisms have been published,—in Sanskrit and German by Dr v. Böhtlingk, and in English by Dr J. Muir. Probably the oldest original collection of this kind is that ascribed to Chanakya,—and entitled Râjanîtisa-muchchaya, “ collection on the conduct of kings ”—traditionally connected with the Machiavellian minister of Chandragupta, but (in its present form) doubtless much later—of which there are several recensions, especially a shorter one of one hundred couplets, and a larger one of some three hundred. Another old collection is the Kâmandakîya-Nîtisâra, ascribed to Kamandaki, who is said to have been the disciple of Chanakya. Under the name of Bhartrihari have been handed down three centuries of sententious couplets, one of which, the nîti-śataka, relates to ethics, whilst the other two, the sringâra- and vairâgya-śatakas, consist of amatory and devotional verses respectively. The Nîti-pradipa, or “lamp of conduct,” consisting of sixteen stanzas, is ascribed to Vetâlabhatta who is mentioned as one of nine gems at Vikramaditya’s court (c. 550 a.d.). The Amarû-śataka, consisting of a hundred stanzas, ascribed to a King Amaru (sometimes wrongly to Sankara), and the Chaura-suratapanchâśikâ, by Bilhana (11th century), are of an entirely erotic character.
6. Fables and Narratives.— For purposes of popular instruction stanzas of an ethical import were early worked up with existing prose fables and popular stories, probably in imitation of the Buddhist jâtakas, or birth-stories. A collection of this kind, intended as a manual for the guidance of princes (in usum delphini), was translated into Pahlavi in the reign of the Persian king Chosru Nushirvan, 531-579 a.d. ; but neither this translation nor the original is any longer extant. A Syriac translation, however, made from the Pahlavi in the same century, under the title of “Qualilag and Dimnag ”—from the
Sanskrit “Karataka and Damanaka,” two jackals who play an important part as the lion’s counsellors—has been discovered and published. The Sanskrit original, which probably consisted of fourteen chapters, was afterwards recast,—the result being the existing Panchatantra, or “five books” (or headings). A popular summary of this work, in four books, the Hitopadesa, or “Salutary counsel,” is ascribed to the Brahman Vishnusarman. Other highly popular collections of stories and fairy tales, interspersed with moral maxims, are—the Vetâla-pan-chavimśati or “twenty-five (stories) of the Vetala” (the original of the Baital Pachisi), ascribed either to Jambhala Datta, or to Śivadâsa (while Prof. Weber suggests that Vetâla-bhatta may have been the author), and at all events older than the 12th century, since Somadeva has used it; the Śuka-saptati, or “seventy (stories related) by the parrot,” the author and age of which are unknown; and the Simhdsana-dvâtrimśikâ, or “thirty-two (tales) of the throne,” being laudatory stories regarding Vikramaditya, related by thirty-two statues, standing round the old throne of that famous monarch, to King Bhoja of Dhârâ to discourage him from sitting down on it. This work is ascribed to Kshemankara, and was probably composed in the time of Bhoja (who died in 1053) from older stories in the Maharashtra dialect. The original text has, however, undergone many modifications, and is now known in several different recensions. Of about the same date are two great storehouses of fairy tales, composed entirely in ślokas, viz., the Vrihat-kathâ, or “great story,” by Kshemendra, also called Kshemankara, who wrote c. 1020-40, under King Ananta, and the Kathâ-sarit-sâgara, or “the ocean of the streams of story,” composed by Somadeva, in the beginning of the 12th century, to console the mother of King Harshadeva on her son’s death. Both these works are based on a work in the Paisâchî dialect, of the 6th century, viz., Gunâdhya’s Vrihat-kathâ.
In higher class prose works of fiction the Sanskrit literature is extremely poor; and the few productions of this kind of which it can boast are of a highly artificial and pedantic character. These include the Daśakumâra-charita, or “the adventures of the ten princes,” composed by Dandin, about the 6th century, and the Vâsavadattâ, by Subandhu, the contemporary of the poet Bana (c . 620), who himself wrote the first part of a novel, the Kâdambarî, afterwards completed by his son.
B. SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE.
I. Law (Dharma).— Among the technical treatises of the later Vedic period, certain portions of the Kalpa-sûtras, or manuals of ceremonial, peculiar to particular schools, were referred to as the earliest attempts at a systematic treatment of law subjects. These are the Dharma-sûtras, or “rules of (religious) law,” also called Sâmayâchârika-sûtras, or “rules of conventional usage (samaya-achara).” It is doubtful whether such treatises were at any time quite as numerous as the Grihyasutras, or rules of domestic or family rites, to which they are closely allied, and of which indeed they may originally have been an outgrowth. That the number of those actually extant is comparatively small is, however, chiefly due to the fact that this class of works was supplanted by another of a more popular kind, which covered the same ground. The Dharmasutras consist chiefly of strings of terse rules, containing the essentials of the science, and intended to be committed to memory, and to be expounded orally by the teacher—thus forming, as it were, epitomes of class lectures. These rules are interspersed with couplets or “gathas,” in various metres, either composed by the author himself or quoted from elsewhere, which generally give the substance of the preceding rules. One can well understand why such couplets should gradually have become more popular, and should ultimately have led to the appearance of works entirely composed in verse. Such metrical law-books did spring up in large numbers, not all at once, but over a long period of time, extending probably from about the beginning of our era, or even earlier, down to well-nigh the Mohammedan conquest; and, as at the time of their first appearance the epic impulse was particularly strong, other metres were entirely discarded for the epic śloka. These works are the metrical Dharma-śâstras, or, as they are usually called, the Smriti, “recollection, tradition,”—a term which, as we have seen, belonged to the whole body of Sutras (as opposed to the Sruti, or revelation), but which has become the almost exclusive title of the versified institutes of law (and the few Dharmasûtras still extant). Of metrical Smritis about forty are hitherto known to exist, but their total number probably amounted to at least double that figure, though some of these, it is true, are but short and insignificant tracts, while others arc only different recensions of one and the same work.
With the exception of a few of these works—such as the Agni·, Yama-, and Vishnu-Smritis— which are ascribed to the respective gods, the authorship of the Smritis is attributed to old rishis, such as Atri, Kanva, Vyasa, Sandilya, Bharadvaja. It is, however, extremely doubtful whether in most cases this attribution is not altogether fanciful, or whether, as a rule, there really existed a traditional connexion between these works and their alleged authors or schools named after them. The idea, which early suggested itself to Sanskrit scholars, that Smritis which passed by the names of old Vedic teachers and their schools might simply be metrical recasts of the Dharma- (or Grihya-) sutras of these schools, was a very natural one, and, indeed, is still a very probable one, though the loss of the original Sutras, and the modifications and additions which the Smritis doubtless underwent in course of time, make it very difficult to prove this point. One could, however, scarcely account for the disappearance of the Dharmasûtras of some of the most important schools except on the ground that they were given up in favour of other works; and is it likely that this should have been done, unless there was some guarantee that the new works, upon the whole, embodied the doctrines of the old authorities of the respective schools? Thus, as regards the most important of the Smritis, the Mâmava-Dharmaiâstra, there exist both a Srauta-and a Grihya-sAtra of the MAnava school of the Black Yajus, but no such Dharmasutra has hitherto been discovered, though the former existence of such a work has been made all but certain by Prof. Buhler’s discovery of quotations from a Mânavam, consisting partly of prose rules, and partly of couplets, some of which occur literally in the Manusmriti, whilst others have been slightly altered there to suit later doctrines, or have been changed from the original trishtubli into the epic metre. The idea of an old law-giver Manu Svayambhuva,—“sprung from the self-existent (svayam-bhu)” god Brahman,—reaches far back into Vedic antiquity: he is mentioned as such in early texts; and in Yaska’s Nirukta a śloka occurs giving his opinion on a point of inheritance. But whether or not the Mânava-Dharmasutra embodied what were supposed to be the authoritative precepts of this sage on questions of sacred law we do not know; nor can it as yet be shown that the Manusmriti, which seems itself to have undergone considerable modifications, is the lineal descendant of that Dharmasutra. It is, however, worthy of note that a very close connexion exists between the Manusmriti and the Vishnuśâstra; and, as the latter is most likely a modern, only partially remodelled, edition of the SAtras of the Black Yajus school of the Kathas, the close relation between the two works would be easily understood, if it could be shown that the Manusmriti is a modern development of the SAtras of another school of the Charaka division of the Black Yajurveda.
The Manava Dharmśâstra consists of twelve books, the first and last of which, treating of creation, transmigration, and final beatitude, are, however, generally regarded as later additions. In them the legendary sage Bhrigu, here called a Manava, is introduced as Manu’s disciple, through whom the great teacher has his work promulgated. Why this intermediate agent should have been considered necessary is by no means clear. Except in these two books the work shows no special relation to Manu, for, though he is occasionally referred to in it, the same is done in other Smritis. The question as to the probable date of the final redaction of the work cannot as yet be answered. Dr Burnell has tried to show that it was probably composed under the Chalukya king Pulakesi, about 500 a.d., but his argumentation is anything but convincing. From several ślokas quoted from Manu by Varahamihira, in the 6th century, it would appear that the text which the great astronomer had before him differed very considerably from our Manusmriti. It is, however, possible that he referred either to the Briiiat-Manu (Great M.) or the Vriddha- Manu (old M.), who are often found quoted, and apparently represent one, if not two, larger recensions of the Smriti. The oldest existing commentary on the Mânava-Dharmaśâstra is by Medhatithi, who is first quoted in 1200, and is usually supposed to have lived in the 9th or 10th century. He had, however, several predecessors to whom he refers as pûrve, “the former ones.”
Next in importance among Smritis ranks the Yâjnavalkya Dharmaśâstra. Its origin and date are not less uncertain,—except that, in the opinion of Prof. Stenzler, which has never been questioned, it is based on the Manusmriti, and represents a more advanced stage of legal theory and definition than that work. Yâjnvavalkya, as we have seen, is looked upon as the founder of the Vajasaneyius or White Yajus, and the author of the Satapatha-brahmana. In the latter work he is represented as having passed some time at the court of King Janaka of Videha (Tirhut); and in accordance therewith he is stated, in the introductory couplets of the Dharmaśâstra, to have propounded his legal doctrines to the sages, while staying at Mithilâ (the capital of Videha). Hence, if the connexion between the metrical Smritis and the old Vedic schools be a real one and not one of name merely, we should expect to find in the Ya-jnavalkya-smriti special coincidences of doctrine with the Kâtîya-sutra, the principal Sutra of the Vajasaneyins. Now, some sufficiently striking coincidences between this Smriti and Paraskara’s Kâttya-Grihyasûtra have indeed been pointed out; and if there ever existed a Dharmasûtra belonging to the same school, of which no trace has hitherto been found, the points of agreement between this and the Dharmaśâstra might be expected to be even more numerous. As in the case of Manu, ślokas are quoted in various works from a Brihat- and a Vriddha-Yâjnavalkya. The Yâjnavalkya-smriti consists of three books, corresponding to the three great divisions of the Indian theory of law :—â châra, rule of conduct (social and caste duties); vyavahâra, civil and criminal law; and prâyaśchitta, penance or expiation. There are two important commentaries on the work :—the famous Mitâksharâ, by Vijnaneśvara, who lived under the Chalukya king Vikramâditya of Kalyana (1076-1127); and another by Apararka or Aparaditya, a petty Silara prince of the latter half of the 12th century.
The Parâiara-smriti contains no chapter on jurisprudence, but treats only of religious duties and expiations in 12 adhyâyas. The deficiency was, however, supplied by the famous exegete Madhava (in the latter half of the 14th century), who made use of Parasara’s text for the compilation of a large digest of religious law, usually called Parâśara-mâdhavîyam, to which he added a third chapter on vyavahâra, or law proper. Besides the ordinary text of the Parâśara-smriti, consisting of rather less than 600 couplets, there is also extant a Brihat-Parâśarasmriti, probably an amplification of the former, containing not less than 2980 (according to others even 3300) slokas. The Nâradîya-Dharmaśâstra, or Nâradasmriti, is a work of a more practical kind; indeed, it is probably the most systematic and business-like of all the Smritis. It does not concern itself with religious and moral precepts, but is strictly confined to law. Of this work again there are at least two different recensions. Besides the text translated by Dr Jolly, a portion of a larger recension has come to light in India. This version has been commented upon by Asaliaya, “the peerless ”—a very esteemed writer on law who is supposed to have lived before Medhatithi (? 9th century)—and it may therefore be considered as the older recension of the two. But, as it has been found to contain the word dînâra, an adaptation of the Roman denarius, it cannot, at any rate, be older than the 2d century; indeed, its date is probably several centuries later.
Whether any of the Dharmaśâstras were ever used in India as actual “codes of law” for the practical administration of justice is very doubtful; indeed, so far as the most prominent works of this class are concerned, it is highly improbable. No doubt these works were held to be of the highest authority as laying down the principles of religious and civil duty; but it was not so much any single text as the whole body of the Smriti that was looked upon as the embodiment of the divine law. Hence, the moment the actual work of codification begins in the 11th century, we find the jurists engaged in practically showing how the Smritis confirm and supplement each other, and in reconciling seeming contradictions between them. This new phase of Indian jurisprudence commences with Vijnaneśvara’s Mitâksharâ, which, though primarily a commentary on Yâjnavalkya, is so rich in original matter and illustrations from other Smritis that it is far more adapted to serve as a code of law than the work it professes to explain. This treatise is held in high esteem all over India, with the exception of the Bengal or Gaudiya school of law, which recognizes as its chief authority the digest of its founder, Jîmûta-vahana, especially the chapter on succession, entitled Dâyabhâga. Based on the Mitâksharâ, are the Smriti-chandrikâ, a work of great common-sense, written by Devânda Bhatta, in the 13th century, and highly esteemed in Southern lndia; and the Vîra-mitrodaya, a compilation consisting of two chapters, on âchâra and vyavâhâra, made in the first half of the 17th century by Mitramiśra, for Râjâ Vîrasimha, or Bîrsinh Deo of Orchbâ, who murdered Abul Fazl, the minister of the emperor Akbar, and author of the Âin i Akbarî. There is no need here to enumerate any more of the vast number of treatises on special points of law, of greater or less merit, the more important of which will be found mentioned in English digests of Hindu law.
II. Philosophy. —The Indian mind shows at all times a strong disposition for metaphysical speculation. In the old religious lyrics this may be detected from the very first. Not to speak of the abstract nature of some even of the oldest Vedic deities, this propensity betrays itself in a certain mystic symbolism, tending to refine and spiritualize the original purely physical character and activity of some of the more prominent gods, and to impart a deep and subtle import to the rites of the sacrifice. The primitive worship of more or less isolated elementary forces and phenomena had evidently ceased to satisfy the religious wants of the more thoughtful minds. Various syncretist tendencies show the drift of religious thought to be towards some kind of unity of the divine powers, be it in the direction of the pantheistic idea, or in that of an organized polytheism, or even towards monotheism. In the latter age of the hymns the pantheistic idea is rapidly gaining ground, and finds vent in various cosmogonic speculations; and in the Brahmana period we see it fully developed. The fundamental conception of this doctrine finds its expression in the two synonymous terms brahman (neutr.), originally “power of growth,” then “devotional impulse, prayer,” and dtman (masc.), “breath, self, soul.”
The recognition of the essential sameness of the individual souls, emanating all alike (whether really or imaginarily) from the ultimate spiritual essence {parama-brahman} “as sparks issue from the fire,” and destined to return thither, involved some important problems. Considering the infinite diversity of individual souls of the animal and vegetable world, exhibiting various degrees of perfection, is it conceivable that each of them is the immediate efflux of the Supreme Being, the All-perfect, and that each, from the lowest to the highest, could re-unite therewith directly at the close of its mundane existence? The difficulty implied in the latter question was at first met by the assumption of an intermediate state of expiation and purification, a kind of purgatory; but the whole problem found at last a more comprehensive solution in the doctrine of transmigration {samsdra}. Some scholars have suggested that metempsychosis may have been the prevalent belief among the aboriginal tribes of India, and may have been taken over from them by the Indo-Aryans. This no doubt is quite possible; but even in that case we can only assume that speculative minds seized upon it as offering the most satisfactory (if not the only possible) explanation of the great problem of phenomenal existence. It is certainly a significant fact that, once established in Indian thought, the doctrine of metempsychosis is never again called in question,—that, like the fundamental idea on which it rests, viz., the essential sameness of the immaterial element of all sentient beings, the notion of samsdra has become an axiom, a universally conceded principle of Indian philosophy. Thus the latter has never quite risen to the heights of pure thought; its object is indeed jijnâsâ, the search for knowledge; but it is an inquiry (mîmâmsâ) into the nature of things undertaken not solely for the attainment of the truth, but with a view to a specific object,—the discontinuance of samsara, the cessation of mundane existence after the present life. Every sentient being, through ignorance, being liable to sin, and destined after each existence to be born again in some new form, dependent on the actions committed during the immediately preceding life, all mundane existence thus is the source of ever-renewed suffering; and the task of the philosopher is to discover the means of attaining moksha, “release” from the bondage of material existence, and yoga, “union” with the Supreme Self,—in fact, salvation. It is with a view to this, and this only, that the Indian metaphysician takes up the great problems of life,—the origin of man and the universe, and the relation between mind and matter.
It is not likely that these speculations were viewed with much favour by the great body of Brahmans engaged in ritualistic practices. Not that the metaphysicians actually discountenanced the ceremonial worship of the old mythological gods as vain and nugatory. On the contrary, they expressly admitted the propriety of sacrifices, and commended them as the most meritorious of human acts, by which man could raise himself to the highest degrees of mundane existence, to the worlds of the Fathers and the Devas. Nevertheless, the fact that these were only higher grades from which the individual self would still be liable to relapse into the vortex of material existence,—that the final goal lay beyond even those worlds, unattainable through aught but a perfect knowledge of the soul’s nature and its identity with the Supreme Self,—this fact of itself was sufficient to depreciate the merit of the sacrificial cult, and to undermine the authority of the sacred rituals. “Know ye that Self,” exhorts one of those old idealists, “and have done with other words; for that (knowledge) is the bridge to immortality !” Intense self-contemplation being, moreover, the only way of attaining the all-important knowledge, this doctrine left little or no room for those mediatorial offices of the priest, so indispensable in ceremonial worship; and indeed we actually read of Brahman sages resorting to Kshatriya princes to hear them expound this, the true doctrine of salvation. But, in spite of their anti-hierarchical tendency, these speculations continued to gain ground; and in the end the body of treatises propounding the pantheistic doctrine, the Upanishads, were admitted into the sacred canon, as appendages to the ceremonial writings, the Brahmanas. The Upanishads thus form literally “the end of the Veda,” the Vedânta ; but their adherents claim this title for their doctrines in a metaphorical rather than in a material sense, as “the ultimate aim and consummation of the Veda.” In later times the radical distinction between these speculative appendages and the bulk of the Vedic writings was strongly accentuated in a new classification of the sacred scriptures. According to this scheme they were supposed to consist of two great divisions, —the Karma-kânda, i.e., “the work-section,” or practical ceremonial (exoteric) part, consisting of the Samhitas and Brahmanas (including the ritual portions of the Aranyakas), and the Jnâna-kdnda, “the knowledge-section,” or speculative (esoteric) part. These two divisions are also called respectively the Pûrva- (“former”) and Uttara- (“latter,” or higher) kdnda·, and when the speculative tenets of the Upanishads came to be formulated into a regular system it was deemed desirable that there should also be a special system corresponding to the older and larger portion of the Vedic writings. Thus arose the two systems—the Pûrva- (or Karma-) mîmâmsâ, or “former (practical) speculation,” and the Uttara- (or Brahma-) mimdmsd, usually called the Vedanta philosophy.
It is not yet possible to determine, even approximately, the time when the so-called Darsanas (literally “demonstrations”), or systems of philosophy, were first formulated. And, though they have certainly developed from the tenets enunciated in the Upanishads, there is considerable doubt as to the exact order in which these systems succeeded each other. The authoritative exposes of the systems have apparently passed through several redactions; and, in their present form, these sutra-works evidently belong to a comparatively recent period, being probably not older than the early centuries of our era. By far the ablest general review of the philosophical systems (except the Vedanta) produced by a native scholar is the Sarva-darśana-sangraha (“summary of all the Darśanas”), composed in the 14th century, from a Vedântist point of view, by the great exegete Madhava Achârya.
Among the different systems, six are generally recognized as orthodox, as being (either wholly or for the most part) consistent with the Vedic religion,—two and two of which are again more closely related to each other than to the rest, viz. :—
(1) Pûrva-mîmâmsâ (Mimâmsâ), and (2) Uttar a-mimâmsâ (Vedânta);
(3) Sânkhya, and (4) Yoga;
(5) Nyâya, and (6) Vaiseshika.
(1) The (Pûrva) Mimâmsâ is not a system of philosophy in the proper sense of the word, but rather a system of dogmatic criticism and scriptural interpretation. It maintains the eternal existence of the Veda, the different parts of which are minutely classified. Its principal object, however, is to ascertain the religious (chiefly ceremonial) duties enjoined in the Veda, and to show how these duties must be performed, and what are the special merits and rewards attached to them. Hence arises the necessity of determining the principles for rightly interpreting the Vedic texts, as also of what forms its only claim to being classed among speculative systems, viz., a philosophical examination of the means of, and the proper method for arriving at, accurate knowledge. The foundation of this school, as well as the composition of the Sutras or aphorisms which constitute its chief doctrinal authority, is ascribed to Jaimini. The Sûtras were commented on by Sahara Svamin; and further annotations (vârttika) thereon were supplied by the great theologian Kumarila Bhatta, who is supposed to have lived in the (6th or) 7th century, and to have worked hard for the reestablishment of Brahmanism. According to a popular tradition his self-immolation was witnessed by Sankaracharya. The most approved general introduction to the study of the Mimâmsâ is the metrical Jaiminîya-Nyâya-mâlâ-vistara, with a prose commentary, both by Mâdhava Achârya. This distinguished writer, who has already been mentioned several times, was formerly supposed, from frequent statements in MSS., to have been the brother of Sayana, the well-known interpreter of the Vedas. The late Dr Burnell has, however, made it very probable that these two are one and the same person, Sayana being his Telugu, and Mâdhavâchârya his Brahmanical name. In 1331 he became the jagadguru, or spiritual head, of the Smartas (a Vedântist sect founded by Sankarâchârya) at the Math of Śringeri, where, under the patronage of Bukka, king of Vidyânagara, he composed his numerous works. He sometimes passes under a third name, Vidyâranya-svâmin, adopted by him on becoming a sannyâsin, or religious mendicant.
(2) The Vedânta philosophy, in the comparatively primitive form in which it presents itself in most of the Upanishads, constitutes the earliest phase of systematic metaphysical speculation. In its essential features it remains to this day the prevalent belief of Indian thinkers, and enters largely into the religious life and convictions of the people. It is an idealistic monism, which derives the universe from an ultimate conscious spiritual principle, the one and only existent from eternity—the Atman, the Self, or the Purusha, the Person, the Brahman. It is this primordial essence or Self that pervades all things, and gives life and light to them, “without being sullied by the visible outward impurities or the miseries of the world, being itself apart,”—and into which all things will, through knowledge, ultimately resolve themselves. “The wise who perceive him as being within their own Self, to them belongs eternal peace, not to others.” But, while the commentators never hesitate to interpret the Upanishads as being in perfect agreement with the Vedantic system, as elaborated in later times, there is often considerable difficulty in accepting their explanations. In these treatises only the leading features of the pantheistic theory find utterance, generally in vague and mystic though often in singularly powerful and poetical language, from which it is not always possible to extract the author’s real idea on fundamental points, such as the relation between the Supreme Spirit and the phenomenal world,—whether the latter was actually evolved from the former by a power inherent in him, or whether the process is altogether a fiction, an illusion of the individual self. Thus the Katha-upanishad offers the following summary :— “Beyond the senses [there are the objects; beyond the objects] there is the mind (manas); beyond the mind there is the intellect (buddhi); beyond the intellect there is the Great Self. Beyond the Great One there is the Highest Undeveloped (avyaktam); beyond the Undeveloped there is the Person (purusha), the all-pervading, characterless (alinga). Whatsoever knows him is liberated, and attains immortality.” Here the Vedantist commentator assures us that the Great Undeveloped, which the Sankhyas would claim as their own primary material principle (pradliana, prakriti), is in reality Mâyâ, illusion (otherwise called Avidyâ, ignorance, or Śakti, power), the fictitious energy which in conjunction with the Highest Self (Atman, Purusha) produces or constitutes the Îśvara, the Lord, or Cosmic Soul, the first emanation of the Atman, and himself the (fictitious) cause of all that seems to exist. It must remain doubtful, however, whether the author of the Upanishad really meant this, or whether he regarded the Great Undeveloped as an actual material principle or substratum evolved from out of the Purusha, though not, as the Sankhyas hold, coexisting with him from eternity. Besides passages such as these which seem to indicate realistic or materialistic tendencies of thought, which may well have developed into the dualistic Sânkhya and kindred systems, there are others which indicate the existence even of nihilist theories, such as the Bauddhas—the śûnya-vâdins, or affirmers of a void or primordial nothingness— profess. Thus wo read in the Chliandogya-upanishad:—“The existent alone, my son, was here in the beginning, one only, without a second, others say, there was tha non-existent alone here in the beginning, one only, without a second,—and from the nonexistent the existent was born. But how could this be, my son? How could the existent be born from the non-existent? No, my son, only the existent was here in the beginning, one only, without a second.”
The foundation of the Vedanta system, as “the completion of the Veda,” is naturally ascribed to Vyasa, the mythic arranger of the Vedas, who is said to be identical with Badarayana, the reputed author of the Brahma· (or Śârîraka·) sûtra, the authoritative, though highly obscure, summary of the system. The most distinguished interpreter of these aphorisms is the famous Malabar theologian Śankara Achârya (7th or 8th century), who also commented on the principal Upanishads and the Bhagavadgîtâ, and is said to have spent the greater part of his life in wandering all over India, as far as Kashmir, and engaging in disputations with teachers—whether of the Saiva, or Vaishnava, or less orthodox persuasions—with the view of rooting out heresy and re-establishing the doctrine of the Upanishads. His controversial triumphs (doubtless largely mythical) are related in a number of treatises current in South India, the two most important of which are the Śankara-dig-vijaya (“Sankara's world-conquest”), ascribed to his own disciple Anandagiri, and the Śankara-vijaya, by Mâ-dhavâchârya. In Sankara’s philosophy the theory that the material world has no real existence, but is a mere illusion of the individual soul wrapt in ignorance,—that, therefore, it has only a practical or conventional (vyâvahârika) but not a transcendental or true (pâramârthika) reality,—is strictly enforced. To the question why the Supreme Self (or rather his fictitious development, the Highest Lord, or cosmic soul) should have sent forth this phantasmagory this great thinker (with the author of the Sutras) can return no better answer than that it must have been done for sport (lîlâ), without any special motive—since to ascribe such a motive to the Supreme Lord would be limiting his self-sufficiency,—and that the process of creation has been going on from all eternity. Śankara’s Sârîraka-mîmâmsâ-bhâshya has given rise to a large number of exegetic treatises, of which Vâchaspati-misra’s exposition, entitled Bhâmatt, is the most esteemed. Of numerous other commentaries on the Brahma-sûtras, the Śrî-bhâshya, by Ramanuja, the founder of the Śrî-Vaishnava sect, is the most noteworthy. This religious teacher, who probably flourished during the first half of the 12th century, caused a schism in the Vedânta school. Instead of adhering to Sankara’s orthodox advaita, or non-duality doctrine, he put forth the theory of vîśishtâdvaita, i.e., non-duality of the (two) distinct (principles), or, as it is more commonly explained, non-duality of that which is qualified (by attributes). According to this theory the Brahman (which is identical with Vishnu) is neither devoid of form and quality, nor is it all things; but it is endowed with all good qualities, and matter is distinct from it; bodies consist of souls (chit) and matter (achit) ; and God is the soul. With this theory is combined the ordinary Vaishnava doctrine of periodical descents (avatdra) of the deity, in various forms, for the benefit of creatures. In Ramanuja’s system considerable play is also allowed to the doctrine of faith (bhakti). This phase of Indian religious belief, which has attached itself to the VedAnta theory more closely than to any other, and the origin of which some scholars are inclined to attribute to Christian influence, seems first to make its appearance very prominently in the Bhagavadgîtâ, the episode of the Mahâbhârata, already referred to, and is even more fully developed in some of the Puranas, especially the Bhagavata. In the Sândilya- (Bhakti-) sûtra, the author and date of which are unknown, the doctrine is systematically propounded in one hundred aphorisms. According to this doctrine mundane existence is due to want of faith, not to ignorance; and the final liberation of the individual soul can only be effected by faith. Knowledge only contributes to this end by removing the mind’s foulness, unbelief. Its highest phase of development this doctrine probably reached in the religious creed of the Bhaktas, a Vaishnava sect founded, towards the end of the 15th century, by Chaitahya, whose followers subsequently grafted the VedAnta speculations on his doctrine. A popular summary of the Vedanta doctrine is the Vedânta-sâra by Sadananda, which has been frequently printed and translated.
(3) The Sânkhya, or “enumerative” system, probably derives its name from its systematic enumeration of the twenty-five principles (tattva) it recognizes,—consisting of twenty-four material and an independent immaterial principle. In opposition to tho Vedanta school, which maintains the eternal coexistence of a spiritual principle of reality and an unspiritual principle of unreality, the Sankhya assumes tho eternal coexistence of a material first cause, which it calls either mula-Prakiti (fern.), “chief originant” (Nature), or Pradhâna, "the principal" cause, and a plurality of spiritual elements or Selves, Purusha. The system recognizes no intelligent creator (such as tho I&vara, or demiurgus, of the Vedânta)—whence it is called, nirîśvara, godless; but it conceives the Material First Cause, itself unintelligent, to have become developed, by a gradual process of evolution, into all the actual forms of the phenomenal universe, excepting the souls. Its first emanation is buddhi, intelligence; whence springs ahamkâra, consciousness; thence five elementary particles (tanmâtra) and eleven organs of sense; and finally, from the elementary particles, five elements. Tho souls have from all eternity been connected with Nature,—having in the first place become invested with a subtile frame (linga-, or sûkshma-, śartra), consisting of seventeen principles, viz., intelligence, consciousness, elementary particles, and organs of sense and action, including mind. Invested with this subtile frame, they, for the sake of fruition, connect themselves ever anew with Nature, thus, as it were, creating for themselves ever new forms of material existence; and it is only on his attaining perfect knowledge, whereby the ever-changing modes of intelligence cease to be reflected on him, that the Purusha is liberated from the miseries of Samsara.
The reputed founder of this school is the sage Kapila, to whom tradition ascribes the composition of the fundamental text-book, the (Sânkhya-sûtra, or) Sânkhya-pravachana, as well as the Tattva-samAsa, a mere catalogue of the principles. That the Sutras have undergone subsequent modifications might be inferred from the fact that they twice refer to the opinion of Pahchaśikha, who elsewhere is stated to have received his instruction from Asuri, the disciple of Kapila, as well as from the sage himself, of the commentaries on the Sutras, that by Vijnâna Bhikshu, a writer probably of the 16th century, is the most approved. An independent treatise by the same author, the Sânkhya-sâra, consisting of a prose and a verse part, is probably the most valuable compendium of Sânkhya doctrines. Another admirable and highly-esteemed treatise is Iśvara-krishna’s Sârikhya-kârikâ, which gives, in the narrow compass of seventy-five ślokas, a lucid and complete sketch of the system. Though nothing certain is known regarding its author, this work must be of tolerable antiquity, considering that it was commented upon by Gaudapada, the preceptor of Govinda, who, on his part, is said to have been the teacher of Sankaracharya.
(4) The Yoga system is merely a schismatic branch of the preceding school, holding the same opinions on most points treated in common in their Sûtras, with the exception of one important point, the existence of God. To the twenty-five principles (tattva) of the Nirîśvara Sânkhya, the last of which was the Purusha, the Yoga adds, as the twenty-sixth, the Nirguna Purusha, or Self devoid of qualities, the Supreme God of the system. Hence the Yoga is called the Seśvara (theistical) Sânkhya. But over and above the purely speculative part of its doctrine, which it shares with the sister school, the theistic Sankhya has developed a complete system of mortification of the senses—by means of prolonged apathy and abstraction, protracted rigidity of posture, and similar practices, —many of which are already alluded to in the Upanishads,—with the view of attaining to an ecstatic vision of, and reunion (yoga) with, the Supreme Spirit. It is from this portion of the system that the school derives the name by which it is more generally known. The authoritative Sutras of the Yoga, bearing the same title as those of the sister school, viz., Sânkhya-pravachana, but more commonly called Yoga-śâstra, are ascribed to Patanjali, who is perhaps identical with the author of the “great commentary” on Pânini. The oldest commentary on the Sutras, the Pâtahjala-bhâshya, is attributed to no other than Vyâsa, the mythic arranger of the Veda and founder of the Vedânta. Both works have again been commented upon by Vâchaspati-miśra, Vijnâna-bhikshu, and other writers.
(5)(6) The Nyâya and Vaiśeshika are but separate branches of one and the same school, which supplement each other and the doctrines of which have virtually become amalgamated into a single system of philosophy. The special part taken by each of the two branches in the elaboration of the’system may be briefly stated in Dr Röer’s words :—“To the Nyâya belong the logical doctrines of the forms of syllogisms, terms, and propositions; to the Vaiśeshikas the systematical explanation of the categories (the simplest metaphysical ideas) of the metaphysical, physical, and psychical notions, — which notions are hardly touched upon in the Nyaya-sutras. They differ in their statement of the several modes of proof,—the Nyaya asserting four modes of proof (from perception, inference, analogy, and verbal communication), the Vaiseshikas admitting only the two first ones.” The term Nyaya (ni-âya, “in-going,” entering), though properly meaning “analytical investigation,” as applied to philosophical inquiry generally, has come to be taken more commonly in the narrower sense of “logic,” because this school has entered more thoroughly than any other into the laws and processes of thought, and has worked out a formal system of reasoning which forms the Hindu standard of logic.
The followers of these schools generally recognize seven categories (padârtha) :—substance (dravya), quality (guna), action (karma), generality (sâmânya), particularity (viśesha), intimate relation (sarnavâya), and non-existence or negation (abhâva). Substances, forming the substrata of qualities and actions, are of two kinds:— eternal (without a cause), viz., space, time, ether, soul, and the atoms of mind, earth, water, fire, and air; and non-eternal, com prising all compounds, or the things we perceive, and which must have a cause of their existence. Causality is of three kinds :— that of intimate relation (material cause); that of non-intimate relation (between parts of a compound); and instrumental causality (effecting the union of component parts). Material things are thus composed of atoms (anu), i.e., ultimate simple substances, or units of space, eternal, unchangeable, and without dimension, characterized only by “particularity (viśesha).” It is from this predication of ultimate “particulars” that the Vaiseshikas, the originators of the atomistic doctrine, derive their name. The Nyâya draws a clear line between matter and spirit, and has worked out a careful and ingenious system of psychology. It distinguishes between individual or living souls (jîvâtman), which are numerous, infinite, and eternal, and the Supreme Soul (Paramâtman), which is one only, the seat of eternal knowledge, and the maker and ruler (Îśvara) of all things. It is by his will and agency that the unconscious living souls (soul-atoms, in fact) enter into union with the (material) atoms of mind, &c., and thus partake of the pleasures and sufferings of mundane existence. On the Hindu syllogism compare Prof. Cowell’s notes to Colebrooke’s Essays, i. p. 314.
The original collection of Nyâya-sâtras is ascribed to Gotama, and that of the Vaiśeshika-sûtras to Kanada. The etymological meaning of the latter name seems to be “little-eater, particle-eater,” whence in works of hostile critics the synonymous terms Kana-bhuj or Kana-bhaksha are sometimes derisively applied to him, doubtless in allusion to his theory of atoms. He is also occasionally referred to under the name of Kâśyapa. Both sutra-works have been interpreted and supplemented by a number of writers, the commentary of Viśvanâtha on the Nyâya and that of Śankara-miśra on the Vaiśeshika Sûtras being most generally used. There are, moreover, a vast number of separate works on the doctrines of these schools, especially on logic. Of favourite elementary treatises on the subject may be mentioned Ke^ava-misra’s Tarka-bhâshâ, the Tarka-sangraha, Edited and translated by J. R. Ballantyne. 7 and the Bhâshâ-parichheda. A large and important book on logic is Ganges’s Chintâmani, which formed the text-book of the celebrated Nuddea school of Bengal, founded by Raghunatha-śiromani about the beginning of the 16th century. An interesting little treatise is the Kuswmâhjali, in which the author, Udayana Acharya (about the 12th century, according to Prof. Cowell) attempts, in 72 couplets, to prove the existence of a Supreme Being on the principles of the Nyâya system.
As regards the different heretical systems of Hindu philosophy, there is no occasion, in a sketch of Sanskrit literature, to enter into the tenets of the two great anti-Brahmanical sects, the Jainas and Buddhists. While the original works of the former are written entirely in a popular (the Ardha-mâgadhi) dialect, the northern Buddhists, it is true, have produced a considerable body of literature, composed in a kind of hybrid Sanskrit, but only a few of their sacred books have as yet been published; and it is, moreover, admitted on all hands that for the pure and authentic Bauddha doctrines we have rather to look to the Pali scriptures of the southern branch. Nor can we do more here than briefly allude to the theories of a few of the less prominent heterodox systems, however interesting they may be for a history of human thought.
The Chârvâkas, an ancient sect of undisguised materialism, who deny the existence of the soul, and consider the human person (purusha) to be an organic body endowed with sensibility and with thought, resulting from a modification of the component material elements, ascribe their origin to Brihaspati; but their authoritative text-book, the Bârhaspatya-sûtra, is only known so far from a few-quotations.
The Pâncharâtras, or Bhâgavatas, are an early Vaishnava sect, in which the doctrine of faith, already alluded to, is strongly developed. Hence their tenets are defended by Ramanuja, though they are partly condemned as heretical in the Brahma-sutras. Their recognized text-book is the Nârada-Pahcharâtra. According to their theory the Supreme Being (Bhagavat, Vâsudeva, Vishnu) became four separate persons by successive production. While the Supreme Being himself is indued with the six qualities of knowledge, power, strength, absolute sway, vigour, and energy, the three divine persons successively emanating from him and from one another represent the living soul, mind, and consciousness respectively.
The Pâśupatas, one of several Saiva (Mâheśvara) sects, hold the Supreme Being (Îśvara), whom they identify with Śiva, to be the creator and ruler of the world, but not its material cause. With the Sânkhyas they admit the notion of a plastic material cause, the Pradhâna ; while they follow Patanjali in maintaining the existence of a Supreme God. III. Grammar (Vyâkarana).— We found this subject enumerated as one of the six “limbs of the Veda,” or auxiliary sciences, the study of which was deemed necessary for a correct interpretation of the sacred Mantras, and the proper performance of Vedic rites. Linguistic inquiry, phonetic as well as grammatical, was indeed early resorted to both for the purpose of elucidating the meaning of the Veda, and with the view of settling its textual form. The particular work which came ultimately to be looked upon as the “vedanga” representative of grammatical science, and has ever since remained the standard authority for Sanskrit grammar in India, is Panini’s Ashtâdhyâyî, so called from its “consisting of eight lectures (adhyâya),” of four pâdas each. For a comprehensive grasp of linguistic facts, and a penetrating insight into the structure of the vernacular language, this work stands probably unrivalled in the literature of any nation,—though few other languages, it is true, afford such facilities as the Sanskrit for a scientific analysis. Panini’s system of arrangement differs entirely from that usually adopted in our grammars, viz., according to the so-called parts of speech. As the work is composed in aphorisms intended to be learnt by heart, economy of memory-matter was the author’s paramount consideration. His object was chiefly attained by the grouping together of all cases exhibiting the same phonetic or formative feature, no matter whether or not they belonged to the same part of speech. For this purpose he also makes use of a highly artificial and ingenious system of algebraic symbols, consisting of technical letters (anu-bandha), used chiefly "with suffixes, aud indicative of the changes which the roots or stems have to undergo in word-formation.
It is self-evident that so complicated and complete a system of linguistic analysis and nomenclature could not have sprung up all at once and in the infancy of grammatical science, but that many generations of scholars must have helped to bring it to that degree of perfection which it exhibits in Panini’s work. Accordingly we find Panini himself making reference in various places to ten different grammarians, besides two schools, which he calls the “eastern (prânchas) ” and “northern (udanchas )” grammarians. Perhaps the most important of his predecessors was Sakatayana, also mentioned by Yaska—the author of the Nirukta, who is likewise supposed to have preceded Panini—as the only grammarian (vaiyâ-karana) who held with the etymologists (nairukta) that all nouns are derived from verbal roots. Unfortunately there is little hope of the recovery of his grammar, which would probably have enabled us to determine somewhat more exactly to what extent Panini was indebted to the labours of his predecessors., There exists indeed a grammar in South Indian MSS., entitled Sabdânuśâsana, which is ascribed to one Śâkatâyana; but this has been proved to be the production of a modern Jaina writer, which, however, seems to be partly based on the original work, and partly on Panini and others. Panini is also called Dâkshîputra, after his mother Dâkshî. As his’birthplace the village Śalâtura is mentioned, which was situated some few miles north-west of the Indus, in the country of the Gandhâras, whence later writers also call him Śâlâturîya, the formation of which name he himself explains in his grammar. Another name sometimes applied to him is Śâlanki. In the Kathâ-saritsâgara, a modern collection of popular tales mentioned above, Pânini is said to have been the pupil of Varsha, a teacher at Pataliputra, under the reign of Nanda, the father (?) of Chandragupta - (315-291 B.C.). The real date of the great grammarian is, however, still a matter of uncertainty. While Goldstucker attempted to put his date back to ante-Buddhist times (about the 7th century B.C.), Prof. Weber holds that Panini’s grammar cannot have been composed till some time after the invasion of Alexander the Great. This opinion is chiefly based on the occurrence in one of the Sutras of the word yavanânî, in the sense of “the writing of the Yavanas (Ionians),” thus implying, it would seem, such an acquaintance with the Greek alphabet as it would be impossible to assume for any period prior to Alexander’s Indian campaign (326 b.c.). But, as it is by no means certain that this term really applies to the Greek alphabet, it is scarcely expedient to make the word the corner-stone of the argument regarding Panini’s age. If Patanjali’s “great commentary” was written, as seems highly probable, about the middle of the 2nd century b.c., it is hardly possible to assign to Panini a later date than about 400 b.c. Though this grammarian registers numerous words and formations as peculiar to the Vedic hymns, his chief concern is with the ordinary speech (bhâshâ) of his period and its literature; and it is noteworthy, in this respect, that the rales he lays down on some important points of syntax (as pointed out by Profs. Bhandarkar and Kielhorn) are in accord with the practice of the Brahmanas rather than with that of the later classical literature.
Pânini’s Sûtras continued for ages after to form the centre of grammatical activity. But, as his own work had superseded those of his predecessors, so many of the scholars who devoted themselves to the task of perfecting his system have sunk into oblivion. The earliest of his successors whose work has come down to us (though perhaps not in a separate form), is Katyayana, the author of a large collection of concise critical notes, called Vârttika, intended to supplement and correct the Sutras, or give them greater precision. The exact date of this writer is likewise unknown; but there can be little doubt that he lived at least a century after Panini. During the interval a new body of literature seems to have sprung up, —accompanied with considerable changes of language,—and the geographical knowledge of India extended over large tracts towards the south. Whether this is the same Katyayana to whom the Vâjasaneyi-prâtiśâkliya (as well as the Sarvanukrama) is attributed, is still doubted by some scholars. Katyayana being properly a family or tribal name, meaning “the descendant of Katya, later works usually assign a second name Vararuchi to the writers (for there are at least two) who bear it. The Kathasaritsagara makes the author of the Varttikas a fellow-student of Pânini, and afterwards the minister of King Nanda; but, though this date might have fitted Katyayana well enough, it is impossible to place any reliance on the statements derived from such a source. Katyayana was succeeded again, doubtless after a considerable interval, by Patanjali, the author of the (Vyâkarana-) Mahâ-bhâshya, or Great Commentary. For the great variety of information it incidentally supplies regarding the literature and manners of the period, this is, from an historical and antiquarian point of view, one of the most important works of the classical Sanskrit literature. Fortunately the author’s date has been settled by synchronisms implied in two passages of his work. In one of them the use of the imperfect—as the tense referring to an event, known to people generally, not witnessed by the speaker, and yet capable of being witnessed by him—is illustrated by the statement, “The Yavana besieged Saketa,” which there is reason to believe can only refer to the Indo-Bactrian king Menander (144-c. 124 b.c.), who, according to Strabo, extended his rule as far as the Yamunâ. In the other passage the use of the present is illustrated by the sentence, “We are sacrificing for Push-pamitra,”—this prince (178-c. 142 B.C.), the founder of the Sunga dynasty, being known to have fought against the Greeks. 10 We thus get the years 144-142 B.C. as the probable time when the work, or part of it, was composed. Although Patanjali probably gives not a few traditional grammatical examples mechanically repeated from his predecessors, those hero mentioned are fortunately such as, from the very nature of the case, must have been made by himself. The Mahâbhâshva is not a continuous commentary on Pânini’s grammar, but deals only with those Sûtras (some 1720 out of a total of nearly 4000) on which Katyayana had proposed any Varttikas, the critical discussion of which, in connexion with the respective Sutras, and with the views of other grammarians expressed thereon, is the sole object of Patanjali’s com-mentatorial remarks. Though doubts have been raised as to the textual condition of the work, Prof. Kielhorn has clearly shown that it has probably been handed down in as good a state of preservation as any other classical Sanskrit work. Patanjali is also called Gonardiya,—which name Prof. Bhandarkar takes to mean “a native of Gonarda,” a place, according to the same scholar, probably identical with Gonda, a town some 20 miles north-west of Oudh,—and Gonikaputra, or son of Gonika. Whether there is any connexion between this writer and the reputed author of the Yogaśâstra is doubtful. The Maliabhashya has been commented upon by Kaiyata, in his Bhdshyapradtpa, and the latter again by Nâgojîbhatta, a distinguished grammarian of the earlier part of the last century, in his Bhdshya-pradipoddyota.
Of running commentaries on Panini’s Sutras, the oldest extant and most important is the Kâsikâ Vritti, or “comment of Kâśî (Benares),” the joint production of two Jaina writers of probably the first half of the 7th century, viz., Jayâditya and Vâmana, each of whom composed one half (four adhyâyas) of the work. The chief commentaries on this work are Haradatta Miśra’s Padamanjarî, which also embodies the substance of the Mahâbhâshya, and Jinendra-buddhi’s Nyâsa.
Educational requirements in course of time led to the appearance of grammars, chiefly of an elementary character, constructed on a more practical system of arrangement—the principal heads under which the grammatical matter was distributed usually being— rules of euphony (sandhi); inflexion of nouns (nâman), generally including composition and secondary derivatives; the verb (âkhyâta); and primary (krid-anta) derivatives. In this way a number of grammatical schools sprang up at different times, each recognizing a special set of Sutras, round which gradually gathered a more or less numerous body of commentatorial and subsidiary treatises. As regards the grammatical material itself, these later grammars supply comparatively little that is not already contained in the older works,—the difference being mainly one of method, and partly of terminology, including modifications of the system of technical letters (anubandha). 0f the grammars of this description hitherto known the Châindra-vyâkarana is probably the oldest,—its author Chandra Âchârya having flourished under King Abhimanyu of Kashmir, who is usually supposed to have lived towards the end of the 2d century, and in whose reign that grammarian is stated, along with others, to have revived the study of the Mahâbhâshya in Kashmir. Only portions of this grammar, with a commentary by Ânandadatta, have as yet been recovered.
The Kâtantra, or Kâlâpa, is ascribed to Kumâra, the god of war, whence this school is also sometimes called Kaumâra. The real author probably was Sarva-varman, who also wrote the original commentary (vritti), which was afterwards recast by Durgasimha, and again commented upon by the same writer, and subsequently by Trilochana-dâsa. The date of the Kâtantra is unknown, but it will probably have to be assigned to about the 6th or 7th century. It is still used in many parts of India, especially in Bengal and Kashmir. Other grammars are—the Sârasvatî Prakriyâ, by Anubhûti Svarûpâchârya; the Sankshipta-sâra, composed by Kramadîśvara, and corrected by Jumara-naijdin, whence it is also called Jaumara; the Haima-vydkarana, by the Jaina writer Hemachandra (1088-1172, according to Dr Bhâo Dâjî); the Mugdha-bodha, composed, in the latter part of the 13th century, by Vopadeva, the court pandit of King Mahâdeva (Râmarâja) of Devagiri (or Deoghar); the Siddhânta-kaumudî, the favourite text-book of Indian students, by Bhattoji Dîkshita (17th century); and a clever abridgment of it, the Laghu- (Siddhdnta-) kaumudî, Ed. and transl. by J. R. Ballantyne. For other modern grammars see Colebrooke, Essays, ii. p. 44; Râjendraiaia Mitra; Descriptive Catalogue, i., Grammar. 6 by Varadarâja.
Several subsidiary grammatical treatises remain to be noticed. The Paribhâshâs are general maxims of interpretation presupposed by the Sutras. Those handed down as applicable to Panini’s system have been interpreted most ably by Nâgojîbhatta, in his Paribâshendusekhara. In the case of rules applying to whole groups of words, the complete lists (gana) of these words are given in the Ganapâtha, and only referred to in the Sûtras. Vardhamâna’s Ganaratna-mahodadhi, a comparatively modern recension of these lists (1140 a.d.), is valuable as offering the only available commentary on the Ganas which contain many words of unknown meaning. The Dhdtupdtdias are complete lists of the roots (dhâtu) of the language, with their general meanings. The lists handed down under this title, as arranged by Panini himself, have been commented upon, amongst others, by Mâdhava. The Unâdi-sûtras are rules on the formation of irregular derivatives. The oldest work of this kind, commented upon by Ujjvaladatta, is by some writers ascribed to Kâtyâyana Vararuchi, by others even to Sâkatâyana. The oldest known treatise on the philosophy of grammar and syntax is the Vâkya-padîya, composed in verse, by Bhartrihari (? 7th century), whence it is also called Harikârikâ. Of later works on this subject, the Vaiyâkarana-bhûshana, by Konda-bhatta, and the Vaiyâkarana-siddtiânta-manjâshâ, by Nâgojî-bhatta, are the most important.
IV. Lexicography. —Sanskrit dictionaries (kosha), invariably composed in verse, are either homonymous or synonymous, or partly the one and partly the other. Of those hitherto published, Sâsvata’s Anekârtha-samuchchaya, or “collection of homonyms,” is probably the oldest. While in the later homonymic vocabularies the words are usually arranged according to the alphabetical order of the final (or sometimes the initial) letter, and then according to the number of syllables, Sâsvata’s principle of arrangement —viz., the number of meanings assignable to a word—seems to be more primitive. The work probably next in time is the famous Amara-kosha (“immortal treasury”) by Amara-simha, one of “the nine gems” at the court of King Vikramâditya (c. 550 A.D. ). This dictionary consists of a synonymous and a short homonymous part; whilst in the former the words are distributed in sections according to subjects, as heaven and the gods, time and seasons, &c., in the latter they are arranged according to their final letter, without regard to the number of syllables. This Kosha has found many commentators, the oldest of those known being Kshira-svamin. Among the works quoted by commentators as Amara’s sources are the Trikdnda and Utpalini-koshas, and the glossaries of Rabhasa, Vyadi, Katyayana, and Vararuchi. A Kosha ascribed to Vararuchi,—whom tradition makes one of the nine literary “gems,” and hence the contemporary of Amara-simha,— consisting of ninety short sections, has been printed at Benares (1865) in a collection of twelve Koshas. The Abhidhdna-ratna-mdld, by Halayudha; the Viśvaprakdsa, by Mahesvara (1111); and the Abhidhdna-chintâmani (or Haima-kosha), by the Jaina Hemachandra, seem all three to belong to the 12th century. Somewhat earlier than these probably is Ajaya Pala, the author of the (homonymous) Nânârtha-sangraha, being quoted by Vardhamâna (1140 A.D.). of more uncertain date is Purushottama Deva, who wrote the Trikânâa-śesha, a supplement to the Amarakosha, besides the Hârâvali, a collection of uncommon words, and two other short glossaries. Of numerous other works of this class the most important is the Medinî, a dictionary of homonyms, arranged in the first place according to the finals and the syllabic length, and then alphabetically. Two important dictionaries, compiled by native scholars of the present century, are the Sabdakalpadruma by Radhakanta Deva, and the Vdchaspatya, by Taranatha Tarka-vachaspati. A full account of Sanskrit dictionaries is contained in the preface to the first edition of H. H. Wilson’s Dictionary, reprinted in his Essays on Sanskrit Literature, vol. iii.
V. Prosody (Chhandas).— The oldest treatises on prosody have already been referred to in the account of the technical branches of the later Vedic literature. Among more modern treatises the most important are the Mrita-sanjîvanî, a commentary on Pingala’s Sutra, by Halayudha (perhaps identical with the author of the glossary above referred to); the Vritta-ratnâkara, or “jewel-mine of metres,” in six chapters, composed before the 13th century by Kedara Bhatta, with several commentaries; and the Chhando-manjarî, likewise in six chapters, by Gangadasa. The Srutabodha, ascribed, probably wrongly, to the great Kalidasa, is a comparatively insignificant treatise, dealing only with the more common metres, in such a way that each couplet forms a specimen of the metre it describes. The Vritta-darpana treats chiefly of Prakrit metres. Sanskrit prosody, which is probably not surpassed by any other either in variety of metre or in harmoniousness of rhythm, recognizes two classes of metres, viz., such as consist of a certain number of syllables of fixed quantity, and such as are regulated by groups of breves or metrical instants, this latter class being again of two kinds, according as it is or is not bound by a fixed order of feet. A pleasant account of Sanskrit poetics is given in Colebrooke’s Essays, vol. ii.; a more complete and systematic one by Prof. Weber, Ind. Stud., vol. viii.
VI. Music (Sangîta).— The musical art has been practised in India from early times. The theoretic treatises on profane music now extant are, however, quite modern productions. The two most highly esteemed works are the Sangîta-ratnâkara (“jewel-mine of music ”), by Sarngadeva, and the Sangîta-darpana (“mirror of music”), by Damodara. Each of these works consists of seven chapters, treating respectively of—(1) sound and musical notes (svara) ; (2) melodies (rdga) ; (3) music in connexion with the human voice (prakirnaka) ; (4) musical compositions (prabandha); (5) time and measure (tdla) ; (6) musical instruments and instrumental music (vddya) ; (7) dancing and acting (nritta or nritya). The Indian octave consists like our own of seven chief notes (svara) ; but, while with us it is subdivided into twelve semi-tones, the Hindu theory distinguishes twenty-two intervals (kruti, audible sound). There is, however, some doubt as to whether these śrutis are quite equal to one another,—in which case the intervals between the chief notes would be unequal, since they consist of either two or three or four śrutis,— or whether, if the intervals between the chief notes be equal, the śrutis themselves vary in duration between quarter-, third-, and semi-tones. There are three scales (grâma), differing from each other in the nature of the chief intervals (either as regards actual duration, or the number of srutis or sub-tones). Indian music consists almost entirely in melody, instrumental accompaniment being performed in unison, and any attempt at harmony being confined to the continuation of the key-note. A number of papers, by various writers, have been reprinted with additional remarks on the subject, in Sourindro Mohun Tagore’s Hindu Music, Calcutta, 1875. Compare also “Hindu Music,” reprinted from the Hindoo Patriot, September 7, 1874.
VII. Rhetoric (Alankdra-sdstra).— Treatises on the theory of literary composition are very numerous. Indeed, a subject of this description—involving such nice distinctions as regards the various kinds of poetic composition, the particular subjects and characters adapted for them, and the different sentiments or mental conditions capable of being both depictured and called forth by them— could not but be congenial to the Indian mind. H. H. Wilson, in his Theatre of the Hindus, has given a detailed account of these theoretic distinctions with special reference to the drama, which, as tho most perfect and varied kind of poetic production, usually takes an important place in the theory of literary composition. The Bharata-śâstra has already been alluded to as probably the oldest extant work in this department of literature. Another comparatively ancient treatise is the Kâvyâdarśa, or “mirror of poetry,” in three chapters, by Dandin, the author of the novel Dasakumaracharita, who probably flourished not long after Kalidasa (whose Prakrit poem Setubandha he quotes) in the 6th century. The work consists of three chapters, treating—(1) of two different local styles (rîti) of poetry, the Gaudi and the Vaidarbhi (to which later critics add four others, the Pânchâlî, Magadhî, Lati, and Avantika); (2) of the graces and ornaments of style, as tropes, figures, similes; (3) of alliteration, literary puzzles, and twelve kinds of faults to be avoided in composing poems. Another treatise on rhetoric, in Sutras, with a commentary entitled Kâvyâlankâra-vritti, is ascribed to Vamana. Prof. Cappeller, to whom we owe an edition of this work, is inclined to fix it as late as the 12th century; but it may turn out to be somewhat older. The Kâvyâlankâra, by the Kashmirian Rudrata, must have been composed prior to the 11th century, as a gloss on it (by Nami), which professes to be based on older commentaries, was written in 1068. Dhananjaya, the author of the Daśa-rûpa, or “ten forms' (of plays),” the favourite compendium of dramaturgy, appears to have flourished in the 10th century. In the concluding stanza he is stated to have composed his work at the court of King Munja, who is probably identical with the well-known Malava prince, the uncle and predecessor of King Bhoja of Dhârâ. The Daśarûpa was early commented upon by Dhanika, possibly the author’s own brother, their father’s name being the same (Vishnu). Dhanika quotes Rajasekhara, who is supposed to have flourished about 1000 A.D., but may after all have to be put somewhat earlier. The Sarasvatî-kanthâbharana, “the neck-ornament of Sarasvati (the goddess of eloquence),” a treatise, in five chapters, on poetics generally, remarkable for its wealth of quotations, is ascribed to King Bhoja himself (11th century), probably as a compliment by some writer patronized by him. The Kâvya-prakâsa, “the lustre of poetry,” another esteemed work of the same class, in ten sections, was probably composed in the 12th century,—the author, Mammata, a Kashmirian, having been the maternal uncle of Sri-Harsha, the author of the Naisliadhiya. The Sdhitya-darpana, or “mirror of composition,” the standard work on literary criticism, was composed in the 15th century, on the banks of the Brahmaputra, by Viśvanatha Kavirâja. The work consists of ten chapters, treating of the following subjects :—(1) the nature of poetry; (2) the sentence; (3) poetic flavour (rasa); (4) the divisions of poetry; (5) the functions of literary suggestion; (6) visible and audible poetry (chiefly on dramatic art); (7) faults of style; (8) merits of style; (9) distinction of styles; (10) ornaments of style.
VIII. Medicine (Âyur-veda, Vaidya-śâstra).— Though the early cultivation of the healing art is amply attested by frequent allusions in the Vedic writings, it was doubtless not till a much later period that the medical practice advanced beyond a certain degree of empirical skill and pharmaceutic routine. From the simultaneous mention of the three humours (wind, bile, phlegm) in a vârttika to Panini (v. 1, 38), some kind of humoral pathology would, however, seem to have been prevalent among Indian physicians several centuries before our era. The oldest existing work is supposed to be the Charalca-sarphitd, a bulky cyclopaedia in ślokas, mixed with prose sections, which consists of eight chapters, and was probably composed some centuries after Christ. Of equal authority, but probably somewhat more modern, is the Suśruta (- samhitâ ), which Susruta is said to have received from Dhanvantari, the Indian AEsculapius, whose name, however, appears also among the “nine gems” (c. 550 A.D.). It consists of six chapters, and is likewise composed in mixed verse and prose,—the greater simplicity of arrangement, as well as some slight attention paid in it to surgery, betokening an advance upon Charaka. Both works are, however, characterized by great prolixity, and contain much matter which has little connexion with medicine. The late Prof. B. Haas, in two very suggestive papers, tried to show that the work of Susruta
(identified by him with Socrates, so often confounded in the Middle Ages with Hippocrates) was probably not composed till after the Mohammedan conquest, and that, so far from the Arabs (as they themselves declare) having derived some of their knowledge of medical science from Indian authorities, the Indian Vaidyaśastra was nothing but a poor copy of Greek medicine, as transmitted by the Arabs. But even though Greek influence may be traced in this as in other branches of Indian science, there can be no doubt, at any rate, that both Charaka and Susruta were known to the Arab Razi (c. 932 A.D.), and to the author of the Fihrist (completed 987 a.d.), and that their works must therefore have existed, in some form or other, at least as early as the 9th century. Among the numerous later medical works the most important general compendiums are Vagbhata’s Ashtânga-hridaya, “the heart of tho eight-limbed (body of medical science),” and Bliava Misra’s Bhâva-prakâśa ; while of special treatises may be mentioned Madhava’s system of nosology, the Rugviniśchaya, or Mâdhâva-nidâna, and Sarngadhara’s compendium of therapeutics, the Sârngadhara-samhitâ. Materia medica, with which India is so lavishly endowed by nature, is a favourite subject with Hindu medical writers,—the most valued treatise being the Râja-nighantu, by the Kashmirian Narahari. The best general view of this branch of Indian science is continued in T. A. Wise’s Commentary on Hindu Medicine, 1845, and in his History of Medicine, vol. i., 1867; but the whole subject, including the principal original works, still awaits a critical investigation.
IX. Astronomy and Mathematics. —Hindu astronomy may be broadly divided into a pre-scientific and a scientific period. While the latter clearly presupposes a knowledge of the researches of Hipparchus and other Greek astronomers, it is still doubtful whether the earlier astronomical and astrological theories of Indian writers were entirely of home growth or partly derived from foreign sources. From very ancient (probably Indo-European) times chronological calculations were based on the synodical revolutions of the moon,—the difference between twelve such revolutions (making together 354 days) and the solar year being adjusted by the insertion, at the time of the winter solstice, of twelve additional days. Besides this primitive mode the Rigveda also alludes to the method prevalent in post-Vedic times, according to which the year is divided into twelve (sâvana or solar) months of thirty days, with a thirteenth month intercalated every fifth year. This quinquennial cycle (yuga) is explained in the Jyotisha, regarded as the oldest astronomical treatise. An institution which occupies an important part in those early speculations is the theory of the so-called lunar zodiac, or system of lunar mansions, by which the planetary path, in accordance with the duration of the moon’s rotation, is divided iuto twenty-seven or twenty-eight different stations, named after certain constellations (nakshatra) which are found alongside of tho ecliptic, and with which the moon (masc.) was supposed to dwell successively during his circuit. The same institution is found in China and Arabia; but it is still doubtful whether the Hindus, as some scholars hold, or the Clialdseans, as Prof. Weber thinks, are to be credited with the invention of this theory. The principal works of this period are hitherto known from quotations only, viz., the Gârgi Samhitâ, which Prof. Kern would fix at c. 50 B.C., the Nâradi Samhitâ, and others.
The new era, which the same scholar dates from c. 250 A.D., is marked by the appearance of the five original Siddliantas (partly extant in revised redactions and in quotations), the very names of two of which suggest Western influence, viz., the Paitâmaha-, Sûrya-, Vasishtha-, Romaka- (i.e., Roman), and Pauliśa-sid-dhdntas. Based on these are the works of the most distinguished Indian astronomers, viz., Aryabhata, probably born in 476; Varâha-mihira, probably 505-507; Brahma-gupta, who completed his Brahma-siddhânta in 628; Bhatta Utpala (10th century), distinguished especially as commentator of Varaha-mihira; and Bhaskara Acliarya, who finished his great course of astronomy, the Siddhânta-siromani, in 1150. In the works of several of these writers, from Aryabhata onwards, special attention is paid to mathematical (especially arithmetical and algebraic) computations; and the respective chapters of Bhaskara’s compendium, viz., the Lîlâvatî and Vija-ganita, still form favourite textbooks of these subjects. The question whether Aryabhata was acquainted with the researches of the Greek algebraist Diophantus (c. 360 a.d.) remains still unsettled; but, even if this was the case, algebraic science seems to have been carried by him beyond the point attained by the Greeks. (J· E.)
