Skip to main content

Full text of "History of Indian Literature"

See other formats






Jlrnnsliittli from tf)t S>econli (Err man CEliili 0 n 




tSaitlj t{)f Sanction of t\)t 2liit!)or 

AV/ dc^ferari — 

Auch hicr wird cs iagcn. 









Demy 8vo, dark green doth, gilt, 

Each 7«. 6i. net 

ALBERUNI : Indi8>« An Acconnt of the Belirion, 
Philosophy, Literatare, Geography, Chrondc^, 
Astronom 7 ,Ca 8 toms,Laws, and Astrology of India, 
about A.D. 1030. By Dr. Edward C. Sachau. 

BARTH (Dr. A.): The' Religrions Of India. 

Authorised Translation by Rev. J. WOOD. 

BiGANDET (B. P.) : Life OP Legend of Gaudama, 
the Buddha of the Burmese ; with Annota- 
tions, the Ways to Neibban, and Notice on the 
PhoDgyies or Burmese Monks. 

BEAL (Prof, s.) : Life Of Hluen-Tslang. By the 

Shamans Hwui Li and Ybn-Tsuno. With a 
Preface containing an Account of the Works of 

COWELL (Prof. E. B.): Sarva-Dapsana-Sam- 

graha; or. Review of the Different Systems of 
Hindu Philosophy. By Madhava Aohabya. 
Translated by Prof. E. B. CowRLL, M.A., and 
Prof. A. E. Gough, M.A. 

DOWSON (Prof. J.): Classical Dictionary of 
Hindu Mythology and Religion, Geo- 
graphy, History, and Literature. 

WEBER (Dr. A.) : Histopy of Indian Literature. 

Translated by John Mann, M.A., and Theodore 
Zachariae, Ph.D. Fourth Edition. 

Other Volumes to follow. 








Crnnalateti from SecontJ CSrrmnn etition 




TOitlj tlje Sanction of tijc 2lutIjor 

A7/ dcsperari — 

Auch hicr wird cs tagcn. 







Fourth Ediiiony 1004 
Popular JlC‘issu€f 1014 

The 7'ighis of irandaiion and of reproduction are reserved 


According to the original intention, the English trans- 
lation of this work was to have appeared shortly after the 
second German edition, which came out in the end of 1875, 
and which, as mentioned by the author in his preface, was 
in part prepared with a vieAv to this translation. In con- 
sequence, however, of the death of Professor Childers, 
under whose direction it was in the first instance begun, 
and of whose aid and supervision it would, had he lived, have 
had the benefit, the work came to a stand-stiil, and some 
time elapsed before the task of continuing and completing 
it was entrusted to those whose names appear on the title- 
page. The manuscript of the translation thus interrupted 
embraced a considerable part of the text of the first divi- 
sion of the work (Vedic Literature). It had not under- 
gone any revision by Professor Childers, and was found to be 
in a somewhat imperfect state, and to require very matei ial 
modification. Upon Mr. Zachariae devolved the labour of 
correcting it, of completing it as far as the close of the 
Vedic Period, and of adding the notes to this First Part, 
none of which had been translated. From the number of 
changes introduced in the course of revision, the portion 
of the work comprised in the manuscript in question 
has virtually been re-translated. The rendering of the 
second division of the volume (Sanskrit Literature) is 
entirely and exclusively the work of Mr. Mann. 

The circumstaiu-es undei’ which the translation has been 

• • f 



produced have greatly delayed its appearance. But for 
this delay some compensation is afforded by the Supple- 
mentary Notes which Professor Weber has written for 
incorporation in the volume ^.311 ff.), and which sup- 
ply information regarding the latest researches and the 
newest publications bearing upon the subjects discussed in 
the work. Professor W eber has also been good enough to 
read the sheets as they came from the press, and the trans- 
lators are indebted to him for a number of suggestions. 

A few of the abbreviations made use of in the titles of 
works which are frequently quoted perhaps require ex- 
planation: e.g., /. St. for Weber’s Indische Studien ; I. Str. 
for liis Indische Streifen ; I. AK. for Lassen’s Indische 
Alterihumshiinde ; Z. D. M. G. for Zeitschrift der deutschen 
morgenldndischen Gesellsehaft, &e. 

The system of transliteration is in the main identical 
with that followed in the German original ; as, however, it 
varies in a few particulars, it is given here instead of in 
the Author’s Preface. It is as follows : 

i i u 6. ri irl 

li U 

k kh g gh fl; 

6 ai 


au ; 

cb ebb 


t tb 





p pb b 




“ ; 
m : 








Anusvdra in, ia the middle ef a word before sibilaula ii ; 

July, 1878 . 


The work of my youth, which here appears in a new edi- 
tion, liad been several years out of print. To have repub- 
lished it without alteration would scarcely have done ; 
and, owing to the pressure of other labours, it was im- 
possible for me, from lack of time, to subject it to a com- 
plete and systematic remodelling. So the matter rested. 
At last, to meet the urgent wish of the publisher, I re- 
solved upon the present edition, which indeed leaves the 
original text unchanged, but at the same time seeks, by 
means of the newly added notes, to accommodate itself to 
the actual position of knowledge. In thus finally decid- 
ing, I was influenced by the belief that in no other way 
could the great advances made in this field of learning 
since the first appearance of this work be more clearly ex- 
hibited than precisely in this way, and that, consequently, 
this edition might at the same time serve in some measure 
to present, in mice, a history of Sanskrit studies during 
the last four-and-twenty years. Another consideration 
was, that only by so doing could I furnish a critically 
secured basis for the English translation contemplated by 
Messrs. Triibner & Co., which could not possibly now give 
the original text alone, as was done in the French transla- 


tion,* which appeared at Paris in 1859. It was, indeed, 
while going over the work with the view of preparing it 
for this English translation, that the hope, nay, the con- 
viction, grew upon me, that, although a compj^te recon- 
struction of it was out of the question, still an edition 
like the present might advantageously appear in a German 
dress also. I rejoiced to see that this labour of my youth 
was standing well the test of time. I found in it little 
that was absolutely erroneous, although much even now 
remains as uncertain and unsettled as formerly ; while, on 
the other hand, many things already stand clear and sure 
which I then only doubtfully conjectured, or which were 
at that time still completely enveloped in obscurity. 

The obtaining of critical data from the contents of Indian 
literature, with a view to the establishment of its internal 
chronology and history — not the setting forth in detail of 
the subject-matter of the 'different works — was, from the 
beginning, the object I had before me in these lectures ; 
and this object, together with that of specifying the publi- 
cations which have seen the light in the interval, has con- 
tinued to be my leading point of view in the present 
annotation of them. To mark off the new matter, square 
brackets are used.f 

The number of fellow-workers has greatly increased 
during the last twenty-four years. Instead of here running 
over their names, I have preferred — in order thus to faci- 

llistoire de la Liithaiure IndknnCy trad, de VAUemand par Alfred 
Sadous. Paris; A, Durand. 1859. 

t Iti the translation, these brackets are only retained to mark new 
matter added in the second edition to the original notes of the first ; the 
notes which in the second edition were entirely new are here simply indi- 
cated by numbers. — Tn, 


litate a general view of this part of the subj ect — to add to 

the Index, which in other respects also has been con- 


siderably enlarged, a new section, showing where I have 
availed myself of the writings of each, or have at least 
referred to them. One work there is, however, which, as 
it underlies all recent labours in this field, and cannot 
possibly be cited on every occasion when it is made use of, 
calls for special mention in this place — I mean the Sanskrit 
Dictionary of Bohtlingk and Eoth, which was completed 
in the course of last summer.* The carrying through of 
this great work, which we owe to the patronage of the St. 
Petersburg Academy of Sciences, over a period of a quarter 
of a century, will reflect lasting honour upon that body as 
well as upon the two editors. 

A. W. 

Berlin, NovemUr, 1875. 

* The second edition bears the inscription : ‘ Dedicated to my friends, 
Bohtlingk and Roth, on the couipletion of the Sanskfic Dictionary.' — Tk. 


The lectures herewith presented to the narrow circle of 
my fellows in this field of study, and also, it is hoped, to 
the wider circle of those interested in researches into the 
history of literature generally, are a first attempt, and as 
such, naturally, defective and capable of being in many 
respects supplemented and improved. The material they 
deal with is too vast, and the means of mastering it in 
general too inaccessible, not to have for a lengthened 
period completely checked inquiry into its internal relative 




could I ever have ventured upon such a labour, had not 
the Berlin Royal Library had tire good fortune to possess 
the fine collection of Sanskrit MSS, formed by Sir R. 
Chambers, the acquisition of which some ten years ago, 
through the liberality of his Majesty, Frederick William 
IV., and by the agency of his Excellency Baron Bunsen, 
opened up to Sanskrit philology a fresh path, upon which 
it has tdready made vigorous progress. In the course of 
last year, commissioned by the Royal Library, I undertook 
the work of cataloguing this collection, and as the result 
a detailed catalogue will appear about simultaneously with 
these lectures, which mav in some sense be regarded as a 


commentary upon it. Imperfect from the absolute 
point of view, both works must appear, I yet cherish the 
hope that they may render good service to learning. 

How great my obligations are, in the special investiga- 
tions, to the writings of Colebrooke, Wilson, Lassen, Bur- 
nouf, Both, Beinaud, Stenzler, and Holtzmann, I only 
mention here generally, as I have uniformly given ample 
references to these authorities in the proper place. 

The form in which these lectures appear is essentially 
the same in which they were delivered,* with the excep- 
tion of a few modifications of style ; thus, in particular, 
the transitions and recapitulations belonging to oral de- 
livery have been either curtailed or omitted; while, on 
the other hand, to the incidental remarks — here given as 
foot-notes — much new matter has been added. 

A. W. 

Berlin, July^ 1852. 

• In tlie Winter-Semester of 



Autiquity of Indian literature, 2 ; proved by geographical 
evidence, 3-4 ; by internal evidence from the history 
of the Hindd religion, 5 ; by evidence drawn from the 
language, 6 ; want of external chronology, 7, 


PrkTiTminary Sukvky, 

(l,) The Sarphitds^ 8-11. 

Saqihitda of the three older Vedas, 8-9 ; mutual relation of 
these three Vedas, 9-10 ; period of their final compila- 
tion, 10 ; Saiphitd of the Atharvan, ii, 

(2.) The BrdhmaTuiey 11-15. 

Their character, 12, and origin, 13; mutual relation of 
the Brdhmanas of the several Vedas, 14 ; their common 
name 6ruti, 15, 

( 3 .) The Sutras, &c. 

Their character and origin, 16 ; 6rauta-Sfitras, 17 ; Qfihya- 
or Smdrta-Sdtras, 17; gradual transformation of the 
original Sraj-iti (Custom and Law), 17, 18; origin of 
caste, 18 ; connection between the Gfibya-Sfitras and 
the legal literature, 19-20; linguistic Stitras, their 
origin, 20, 21 ; character of the time in question, 21, 
22 ; Prtttii 5 dkhya-Sdtra 8 , 23 ; metric, 23 ; Anukrama^is, 
24; tradition— Bjihaddevat^, 24; Nighantu, Nirukti, 
the Veddagas, 25 ; science of grammar, 26 ; philoso- 
phical speculation, 26 fil ; names applied to the early 

sages, 28; Upanishads, Ara^yakas, 28, 29; astronomy 
and I 



ediciue, 29, 3a 


(tt) Saijikitd, 31-44. 

Ita divUions, 31, 32 j ^dkala and V^shkala 






32 ; Ydrkali^ the school of the Sunakas, 33 ; Saunaka, 
Pahchdla Bdbhravya, 34; mythology of the primitive 
Indo-Qermanio time, 35 ; Persian and Indian cycles of 
legend, 36, 37 ; mode of life of the Indians in their 
ancient home, 37, 38 ; reasons 'why they left their 
ancient homes, 38, 39 ; different constituents of Rigveda- 
Saqihitd, 39 ; gods to whom the hymns are addressed, 

40 ; exegetic literature connected with the Saiphitd : 

Tdska, 41 ; SdyaiQia, 41, 42; editions, translations, &c., 

43 , 44 - 

(b) Brdhmanas, 44-52. 

Aitareya- and ^dilkhdyana-Brdhmanas, 44 ; data therein 
bearing on time of their composition, 45 ; they presup- 
pose earlier compositions with similar contents, 45-47 ; 
fables and legends contained in these two Brdhmnnas, 

47 ; the Aranyakas of the Rik : Aitareya-Aranyaka, 48 ff. ; 
Kau&hitakdranyaka, KaushUakopanishad, 50, 51 ; S iip- 
kara’s commentaries on the Upanishads, 51 ; Vdshkala- 
Upanishad, 52. 

(e) 52, 62. 

Tiio Sranta-Sdtras of Aavaldyana and 6ankhdyana, 52 ff. ; 
commentaries thereon, 54, 55 ; the Gribya-Sdtras of 
Aavaldyana and ^fikhdyana, 55 ff. ; the literature pre- 
supposed in these, 56, 57; Rik-Prdtiddkhya, Upalekha^ 

59, 60; 6ikshd, Chhandas, Jyotisha, 60, 6l ; Anukra- 
manls, 6i ; Bj-ihaddevaid, Rigvidhdna, Paridish^s, 62. 

f?.— SA mAVEDA, 63.85 

(а) Samhitd, 63-66. 

Its arrangement, 63; the Qdnas, 64; antiquity of the 
readings of the Sdma-Saiphitd, 64, 65 ; recensions, 65 ; 
editions, &c., 65, 66. 

(б) Brdhmanas, 66-75. 

The Tdndya-Paftchavinda-Brdhmana, 66 ff. ; geographical 
and other data contained therein, 67-68 ; Sbadvinsa- 

Brdhmana, 69 ; Chhdndogyopanishad, its relation to the 


Vrihad-Aranyaka, 70, 71 ; literary and other data in the 
Chhdndogyop., 71, 72; Kenopaiiishad, 73; the smaller 
Brdhmanas of the Sdman — Sdmavidbdna, &c., 74, 75, 

(c) Sutras, 75-85. 


yrauta-Siitras : the Kalpa-Sutra of Masaka, 75-76; Ld- ■ 


tydyana-Sdtra, 76 ff. ; literature therein presupposed, 

76, 77 ; position of non-Brahraanical tribes in this work, 

77; existence of Buddhism presupposed, 78; Sutra of 
Drdhydyana, 79 ; its relation to the Sutras of the other 



Vedas, 8o; Anupada-Stitra, 8o^ 8l ; Niddna-Siitra, 8i, 

82 ; the Pushpa-Sdtra of Qobhila, 82 ; Sdraa-Tantra, 
Paftcbavidhi-, Pratihdra-, Tan^iflakshana-, and Upa- 
grantha-Sdtras, 83 ; the Qrihya-Sdtra of Gobhila, 84 ; 
the Kartni-pradipa of Katydyana, 84 ; Paddhatm and 
Parii^ishtaB, 85. 

(7._YAJURVEDA, 85-145 

L — Thb Black Yajus, 85-103 

(а) SanphUdB^ 85-91. 

DiflFerence between the Black and the White Yajus, 86 ; 
names of the Black Yajus, 86 £F. ; Charaka, Taittiriya, 
and Khdiji^iklya, 87, 88 ; schools of the Black Yajus ; 
Taittiriya-Saiphitd (Apastamba), the El^tbaka, and the 
Atreyi ^Ahd, 88 ; Saqihitds of the Apastamba and 
Atreya schools, and the Kd^haka, 89 ; data contained 
therein, 90 ; Y&ka*s connection with the arrangement 
of the Sfluphitd of the Black Tajus, 91 ; the Mdnava and 
the Maitra, 9T. 

( б ) 9 ^ 99 ^ 

The Brdhma^as of the Apastamba and Atreya schools ; the 
E^thaka portion of the Taitt. Br^hma^a, 92 ; Taittiriya- 
Anu^yaka, 93 ; TTpanishads of the Taitt. An, 93, 94 ; 
schools of the Bh^llavins, Sdtyiiyanins, Sflkdyanins, &o., 

95 ; Svet^vataropanishad, 96; Maitrdyana-Upanishad, 
its modem date, 97 ; the planets, &c., in the Maitn Up., 

98; possible relation of the work to Buddha, 99. 

(c) 8 i&tra 9 ^ 99-103. 

drauta-Sdtras, 99-101 ; Qfihya-Sdtras, lOi, 102 ; Prdti* 
^hya-Sdtra, 102 ; Anukramanis, 103. 

II. — ^Thh Whitb Yajus, .... 103-145 

The name explained, 103 f. ; the name ‘Vdjasaneya,* 104 
f. ; the two schools of the Einvas and M^idhyaipdiDas, 

105; possible connection of the Mddhyaxpdinas with the 
HaStopitPol^ 106. 

(a) SaTfihitdy 107-116. 

Division of the Vdjasaneyi-Saiphiti, 107 ; later origin of 
the last fifteen adhydyoB^ 108 ; relation of the several 
parts of the Vdj. S. to the Black Yajus, 108; to its 
own Brdhmana, and to each other, 109-110; probable 
date of the Rudra-book, iio; the mixed castes, iii ; 
position of the M^adha, ill; nis position in the 
Atharva-Yeda, 112 ; astronomical and other data in the 
Ydj. S., 1 13; position of the Kurus and Pahchdlaa, 
the names Subhadrd and KdmpUa, 114; Arjuna and 



Indra, I15; the fiehm 
116; editions, commen- 

taries, ] 
(6) Brdhmana^ 



the Mddhyazpdinas, ii 
tdndas to the Saiphitd 

120; Agniraha^a- 

kdnda, 120, 121; Ash^ddhydyi 


Aivaniedha-kti^da, 124 fP.; Qdthds, 124, 125; position 
of Janamejaya, 125; of the Pdrikshitiyns, 126; the 
Aranyaka-Wn^a, 126; the Vpihad-Araijyaka Madhu- 
kdnda, 127; its name and list of teachers, 128 ; Ydjna* 
valkiya-kdn^a, 129; Kbila-kdn^a, 130; the concluding 
vania of the datapaths- Brdhmapa, 131 ; probable north- 
western origin of Tcdn 4 M vi-x. of the ^tap* Br., X32 ; 
the whole blended together by one arranging hand, 
133 ; teachers mentioned in the Satap. Br,, 133, 134; 
legends, 134 ff. ; relation of these to the Bpio legends, 
1351 position of the Euru-Pahohdlas compared with 
tl^t of the Fdrikshitas, 136 ; the Pd^^avas not men* 
tioned, 137, points of contact with the Sdipkhya tradi- 
elnn. ¥2*7 i with Buddhist leeend. 128: commentaries on 

the Satap. Br«, editions, &o., 139. 

(c) S'&troB, 139-145* 

The Srauta-Sdtra of Kdtydyana, teachers mentioned there- 
in, 139; other data, 140; commentaries, 141 ; Pad- 
dhatis and Paridish^as ; Nigama-Pari^ishta, Pravard* 
dhydya, Charana-vydba ; the Vaijavdpa-Sdtra, 142; the 
Kdtlya-Grihya-Sdtra of Pdraskara, 142, 143 ; the Prdti- 
6dkhya-Sdtra of the Ydjasaneyi-Saiph., 143, 144; Anu- 
kramani, 144, 145- 



(a) SarpMid^ 145-150. 

Extent and division of Atharvaveda-Saiphitd, I 45 > ^ 4 ® 5 
its contents and arrangement, 146; it probably origi- 
nated in part with the unbrdhmanised Aryans of the 
West, 147; data furnished by the Ath, S., the name 
*Atharvan,’ 148; earliest mention of this name, 1491 
the name ‘ Brahmaveda,' its meaning, I 49 i * 5^5 

tions, Ac,, of the Ath. S., 150. 




The Gopatha-Brihmana, 150-151. 

(c) SuPraty 151-153. 

The Saunakiyii Chaturadhj^lyika, 151 ; Auukraniani, 152 ; 
the Kau4ika-Siitra, 152; Kalpas and Pari^isbtas, 153. 

Upanishads, 153-171. 

Number of the Upaniahiids, 154, 155; Upanishads be- 
longing to the three older Vedaa, I55f 15^ > special divi- 
sion of the Atharvopanishads into three groups : Veddiita, 

Yoga, and Sectarian Upanishads, 156; Atharvan re- 
cension of Upanishads borrowed from the other Vedas, 

157, The Atharvopanishads proper : (i.) ihose-of ihe 
Veddnta da^s — the Mun^akopanishad, 158, 159 > 
nopanishad, 159, 160; Qarbhopauishad, 160; Brahmopa- 
niahad, 160, 161 ; Mdndtikyopanishad, 161 ; remaining 
Upanishads of the Vediinta class: Prdndgnihotrop., Arshi- 
kop., i6i, 162 ; (2) Atharvopanishads of the Yoga class : 

J^bdla, ILi^ha^ruti, Arunika, Bhdilavi, and others, 163 ; 
range of ideas <and style in this class of Upanishads, 165 ; 

(3) the Sectarian Vpaniskadsy 165 ff. ; (a) those in which 
worship of Vishnu (under the names Ndrdyana, &c.) is in- 
culcated, 166; Nfisihhatdpanlyopanishad, 167 ; Rdmatd- 
paniyopanishad, 168 ; Qopdlatdpaniyopanishad, 169 ; 

{fi) Upanishads of the Siva sects : ^atarudriya, Kaivalyo- 
panUhad, 169; Atharvadiras, 169, 170; remaining 
Upanishads of the ^iva sects, 170, 1 71. 


Wherein Distinguished from First Period, . . 175-183 

Distinction in respect of language, 175; gradual develop- 
ment of Indo- Aryan Bhdshdy 176; influence of Indian 
aborigines thereon, 177 ; separation of written language 
from popular dialects — ancient dialectic differences, 

178; rock-inscriptions in popular dialects, 179; in- 
ternal evidence for posteriority of second period, 180; 

Critical condition of texts in this period — age of MSS., 

181 ; distinction as regards subject-matter, 182; classi- 
fication of Sanskrit literature, 183. 

A- WORKS OF POETRY, ...... 183-215 

I. Eno Poetry, 183-196. 

(a) ItUulsay 183-189 : forerunners of Epic poetry in Vedio 



period, 183; the Mahd-Bhdrata, 184; existence of • 
work resembling it in first century A. n., 186; legend 
of Mahd-Bhdrata, its relation to jSatapatba-Brdbmaya^ 

&;c., 186 ; text of Mahd-Bhdrata, non-epic constitnentB, 

187 ; Eavi translation ; Jaimini-Bhdrata, 189; (6) P«- 
rdnas : their general character — ancient Purd^as lost — 
absence of epic and prominence of ritual element in 
existing Purd^as and Upa-purdnas, 190, 191 ; (c) Kd- 
vyo^y 191-196 : the Rdindjana, 191 ; its allegorical 
character, 192 ; colonisation of Southern India, 193 ; 
Bdmdyana the work of a single author, 193; different 
recensions of the text, 194; remaining Edvyas, artificial 

Epic, 195. 


2. Dramatic Poetry, i96-2o8. 

Origin of Drama from dancing, 196 ; Nata-Sfitras men- 
tioned in Pdnini, 197 ; dancing at the great sacrificial 
festivals, 198 ; alleged mention of dramas in oldest (?) 
Buddhistic writings, 199; age of surviving dramas, 

200 ; no foundation for the view which places Kdlidasa 
in the first century B.C., 201, 202; internal evidence from 
Kdliddsa^s dramas themselves on this point, 203; authen- 
ticity of the Mdlavikdguimitra, 204; age of ^fidraka's 
Mrichhaka^i, 205 j subject-matter and special peculi- 
arities of the Hindd drama, 206 ; possibility of Qreek 
influence on its development, 207. 

3, Lyrical Poetry, 208-210. 

Religious lyric, 208; Erotic lyric : Megha-dfila, &c., 209; 
mystical character of some of these poems — the Gita- 
govinda, 210. 

4. Ethico-Did4ctio Poetry, 210-213. 

Niti-j 5 dstras, 210; ‘ Beast- F<ible/ 2ii; Paficha-taiitra, HiU>- 
pade^a, 212; popular tales aud romances, 213, 

5, History and Geography, 213-215, 

Bdja-taraipgini, 213 ; inscriptions, grants, and coins, 215, 

i?.— WORKS OF SCIENCE AND ART, .... 215-276 

I. SciENOK OP Language, 216-232. 

(a) Orammary 216-225: Pdnini’s Grammar, its peculiar 
terminology, 216; Pdnini's date — statements of the 
Chinese traveller Hiuau Thsang, 217 ; weakness of the 
evidence on which Bobtlingk’s view rests, 218; exist- 
ence of Mahdbhdshya in the time of Abhimanyu, 219 ; 
acquaintance with Greeks presupposed in Pdnini, 220; 

* Yavandni/ 221 ; commentaries on Pdnini — Paribhdshds, 


YdrttikaSi Mahdbhtbhya, 222 ; date of K^tyfLyana, 222 ; 
of the Mahdbh^shya, 223 ; critical condition of the text 
of Pdnini, 224 ; Gana-pdtha, &c., 225 ; other gram- 
matical systems, 226. (6) Lexicogra'phyy 227-230 : 

Amara-kosha, no foundation for the view which places 
it in the first century B.O., 228^ internal evidence against 
this view, 229 ; age of the work still uncertain, 230 ; 
Dhdtu-p^thaa, 230. (c) Metric, Poetke, Bhttoric, 231, 
232 : Chhanda^-^dstra of Pingala, Alaipkira-Sdstra of 
Bharata, Sdhitya-darpai;^a, 231. 

2. Philosophy, 232-246. 

High antiquity of philosophical speculation among the 
Hindds, 232 ; * Development,* * Arrangement/ ‘ Crea* 
tion* theories of the world, 233; gradual growth of 
these theories into philosophical systems, 234; the 
S^hpkhya-system, 235, 236 ; the Yoga-system, 237 ; 
Deistic sects, 238 ; influence of S^hpkhya-Yoga on 
development of Gnosticism and ^dfism, 239 ; the two 
Mimddsds, 239 ; Karma-Mim^Uksd-Sdtra of Jaimini, 240 ; 
Brahma-Mfmddad-Sdtra of Bddanlyai;^a, 242 ; age of 
Bddardyana, 243 ; the two logical systems, Nydya and 
Vaiseshika, 244 ; Heterodox systems, 246. 

3. Astronomy and Auxiliary Soibnoes, 246-264. 

Antiquity of astronomy, 246 ; solar year, quinquennial 
cycle, Yugas, 247; the lunar asterisms, 247; mention 
of these in Rik-Saiphitd, 248 ; Jyotisha, 249; the planets, 
249; their peculiar Indian names and number, 250: 
importance of Greek influence here, 251 ; relations of 
Greeks with India, 251 ; the Yavanas, teachers of the 
ancient Indian astronomers, 252; * Ptolemaios, * ‘Asura- 
Maya,’ 233 ; Romaka-Siddhdnta, Pauli^a-Suldhdnta, 
253 ; Greek terms in Vardha-Mihira, 254, 255 ; further 
development of Indian astronomy : Hindds the teachers 
of the Arabs, 255 (also in algebra and arithmetic, — the 
arithmetical figures, 256), and through the Arabs, of Euro- 
pean mediseval astronomers, 257 ; Aryabha^ 257 ; the 
five Siddhdutas, 258 ; Brahmagupta, Vardha-Mihira, 
259 ; date of Yardha-Mihira, ^atdnanda, and Bhdskara, 
260, 261 ; Albirdni’s statements regarding Bhdskara (?), 
262. Later period : Arabs in turn the teachers of the 
Hindds in astrology, 263; Arabic technical terms in 
Indian and European astrological works, 263, 264; lore 
of omens and portents, 264; magic, Ac., 264. 



4* Mbdical Soiskob^ 265-271* 

Its earliest represeutatives, 265 ; Charaka^ Sufruta^ Dhan* 

Tantari, 266; S^liho^ V 6 tsj 4 yana, 267; oncer tain 
date of extant medical works, 268; Hindii medicine 
apparently an independent development, 269; ques* 
tionable autbenticily of existing texts, 269 ; importance 
of Indian medicine, 269 ; its influence on Arabs, 270. 

5. Abt or Wab, Music, Formativb and Txohnioal AnTS^ 


Art of war (Dhanor-veda) : Yiivdmitra, Bharadvdja, 271 ; 
music (Gdndharva-veda), 271 (musical notation, 272); 
ArthaH&btra, 273 : painting and sculpture, 273 ; archi* 
teoture, 274 ; technical arts, 275. 


SHIP, 276-283 

The Dharma-^fUtras, 276 ; Code of Manu, Brahtnanical 
organisation as here presented, 276 ; highly developed 
judicial procedure here exhibited, 277 ; connection of 
Dharma-^^tras with G|rihya-Sdtras, 277, 278 ; critical 
questions connected with existing text of Manu, 279; 
different redactions of Manu and the other Dharma* 

^tras, number of these, 280 ; relation of Menu’s Code 
to that of Tdjnavalkya, date of the latter, 280, 281 ; 

Epic poetry and PurdQas also sources for Hindd law, 

282 ; modem jurisprudence, 282 ; Dekhan the chief 
seat of literaiy activity after eleventh century, 283, 


Buddhism, its origin from Sdipkhya doctrine, 284 ; rela- 
tion of Buddhist legend to the later portions of Vedic 
literature, 285; princes of same name in Buddhist 
legend and ^atapatha-Br^bmana, 286 ; position in former 
of Kuru-Fahclidlas, Fdn^^vas, Mtlgadhas, 286, 287 ; 

Buddhist eras, 287 ; discordance of these with other 
historical evidence, 287 ; earliest demonstrable use of 
these eras, 288 ; Buddha's doctrine, 288 ; his novel way 
of promulgating it, and opposition to Brahmanical 
hierarchy, 2S9 ; tradition as to redaction of Buddliiatio 
sacred scriptures. Northern and Southern, 290 ; mutual 
relation of the two collections, 292 ; Fdli historical litera* 
ture, 293 ; scriptures of Northern Buddhists, their 
gradual origin, 294 ; langui^e in which Southern 
scriptures were at first preserved different from that in 
which the Northern scriptures were recorded at third 



cotinoil, 295, 296 ( Jaina*lit6rature» 296) ; data furniabed 
by Buddhistic Sanskpt literature of doubtful authority 
for Buddha’s age, 297. 

(a) The Sutra-PHaka. distinction between the nmpZe and 
the Mahdvaipulya-Sdtras, 298 ; poetical pieces in latter, 
Qiltbd*dialect, 299; contents of the simple Sdtras; 

Ityukta, Yydkara^, Avaddca, Adbhuta>dhanna, Qeya^ 
Gdtbd^Upade^a, Niddna, Jdtaka,30o, 301 ; their Pantheon 
different from that of the Brdhmana-tezts, 301 ; but 
identical with that of the Epic poetry, 303 ; other 
chronological data in the Sdtras, 304. — (6) The Vinaya^ 

Pi(aka: discipline of clergy, system of mendicancy, 

305 ; Buddhistic hierarchy as distinguished from the 
Brahmanical, Buddhist cult, 306 ; points of connection 
with Christian ritual, 307. — (c) The Ahhidharvut-Pifaia^ 

307 ; schools of Buddhist philosophy, 308 ; relation to 
the Sdifikbya-system, 308; and to Gnosticism, 309.— 
Commentaries on the sacred scriptures, 309 ; Tantras^ 




Sakskbit Indbz, ««••••»•» 329 

Ikdex or Matters, Ac., 353 

brpBX OF Authors, » • . * * t • 358 





At the very outset of these lectures I find myself in a 
certain degree of perplexity, being rather at a loss how 
best to entitle them. I cannot say that they are to treat 
of the history of “ Indian Literature ; ” for then I should 
have to consider the whole body of Indian languages, in- 
cluding those of non- Aryan origin. Nor can I say that 
their subject is the history of “ Indo- Aryan Literature ; ” 
for then I should have to discuss the modern languages of 
India also, which form a third period in the development 
of Indo- Ary an speech. Nor, lastly, can I say that they 
are to present a history of “ Sanskrit Literature ; ” for the 
Indo- Aryan language is not in its first period “ Sanskrit,” 
i.e., the language oi the educated, hut is still a popular 
dialect; wlule in its second period the people spoke not 
Sanskrit, but Prakritic dialects, which arose simultaneously 
with Sanskrit out of the ancient Indo- Aryan vernacular. 
In order, however, to relieve you from any doubt as to 
what you have to expect from me here, I may at once 
remark that it is only the literature of the first and second 
periods of the Indo- Aryan language with which we have 
to do. For the sake of brevity I retain the name “ Indian 

I shall frequently in the course of these lectures he 
forced to draw upon your forbearance. Thfe * subject they 
discuss may be compared to a yet uncultivated tract of 




countiy, of which only a few spots have here a: 
been cleared, while the greater part of it remains 
with dense forest, i 

the prospect. 

penetrable to the eye, and obstructing 

d now by degrees being 
because in addition, to 
natural obstacles which impede investigation, there still 

of prejudice and preconceived opinions 



enfolding it as 


justly so.^ But the reasons which have hitherto been 
thought sufficient to establish this fact are not the correct 
ones; and it is indeed a matter for wonder that people 
should have been so long contented with them. In the first 
iplace, Indian tradition itself has been adduced in support of 
this fact, and for a very long time this was considered suffi- 
cient. It is, I think, needless for me to waste words upon 
the tutile nature of such evidence. In the next place, as- 
tronomical data have been appealed to, according to which 

B.c. But these 

the Vedas would date from about 1400 



purpose. Fur- 

^ In so far as this claim may not 
now be disputed by the Egyptian 
monumental records and papyrus 
rolls, or even by the Assyrian litera- 
ture which has but recently been 
brought to light. 

* Besides, these calculations are of 
a very vague character, and do not 
yield any sucli definite date as that 
given above, but only some epoch 
lying between 1820-860 B.c., see 
1, St, X. 236 ; Whitney in Joum, 
R A. S., i. 317, fF. (1864). True, 
the circumstance that the oldest re- 
cords begin the series of nakshairas 
with the sign KrittiJed, carries us 
back to a considerably earlier period 
even than these dates, derived from 
the so-called Vedic Calendar, viz., 
to a period between 2780-1820 B.c., 
since the vernal equinox coincided 
with “q Tauri {Krittikd), in round 
numbers, about the year 2300 B.c,, 
see /. St^ X. 234 236* But, on the 

other hand, the opinion expressed in 
the first edition of this work (1852), to 
the effect that the Indians may either 
have brought the knowledge of these 
lunar mansions, headed by Krittikd, 
with them into India, or else have 
obtained it at a later period th/ough 
the commercial relations of the Phee- 
nicians with the Panjdb, has recently 
gained considerably in probability \ 
and therewith the suggestion of 
Babylon as the mother country of the 
observations on which this date is 
established. See the second of my two 
treatises, Die vedischen Nachrichten 
von dt n Nakshatra (Berlin, 1862), pp. 
362-4CX) ; my paper, Ueber dm Veda- 
kalender Namens Jyotisha (1862), p. 
15 ; y. St, X. 429, ix. 241, ff.; Whit- 
ney, Oidental and Linfjnutic Studies 
(1874), ii. 418. — Indeed a direct re- 
ference to Babylon and its sea trade, 
in which the exportation of peacocks 
is mentioned, has lately come to light 


ther, one of the Buddhist eras has been relied upon, 
according to which a reformer is supposed to have arisen 
ill the sixth century b.c., in opposition to the Brahmanical 
liicrarchy; but the authenticity of this particular era is 
still extremely questionable. Lastly, the period when 
I’anini, the first systematic grammarian, fiourislied, has 
been referred to the fourth ceutury b.c., and from this, as a 
starting-point, conclusions as to the period of literary deve- 
lopment which preceded him have been deduced. But the 
arguments in favour of Panini’s having lived at that time=^ 
are altogether weak and hypothetical, and in no case can 
they furnish us with any sort of solid basis. 

The reasons, however, by which we are fully justified in 
regarding tlie literature of India as the most ancient lite- 
rature of which written records on an extensive scale have 

been handed down to us, are these : — 

In the more ancient parts of the Rigveda-Samhita, we 
find the Indian -race settled on the north-western borders 
of India, in the Paujab, and even beyond the Panjab, on 
the Kubha, or Kw^'^v, in Kabul.^ The gradual spread of 

in an Indian text, the Hilverujutaka, 
see Miiiayeflf in the MUanges A$ia- 
tiquesi (Imperial Russian Academy), 

vi. 577, ff, (1871), MonaUberickte 
of the iJerlin Academy, p. 622 (1871). 
As, however, this testimony belongs 
to a comparatively late period, no 
great importance can be attached to 
it. — Direct evidence of ancient coui- 
inercial relations between India and. 
the West has recently been found in 
hieroglyphic texts of the seventeenth 
century, at which time the Xryas 
would appear to have been already 
settled on the Indus. For the word 
hipiy * ape,’ which occurs iu i Kings 
X. 22, in the form qof^ Gr. Krprosy is 
found in these Egyptian texts in the 
form kafUf see Joh. Diimichen, Die 
Plotte einev egypt, Konigin ausdem 17 . 
Jahrh. (Leipzig, 1868), table ii. p, 17. 
Lastly, inWiitniy the Hebrew name 
for peacocks ( I Kings x, 22, aChron. 
ii. 21) necessarily implies that al- 
ready in Solomon’s time the Phoeni- 
c^n ophii'-merchanta ‘ * ont eu aflfaire 
■oit au pays zneme des Abhlra soil 
•ur uu autre point de la cote de 

I’Inde avec des peupladfs dravi^i- 
ennes,” Julien Vinson, Reinie de 

Linguuiiqve,\\. 120, If. (1873). 
also Burnell, Elements of ^Sonth In- 
dian Palivography^ p. 5 (Mangalore, 

^ Or even, as Goldstiicker sup- 
poses, earlier than Buddha, 

^ One of the Vedic Kishis, asserted 
to be Vatsa, of the family of Kanva, 
extols, Rik, viii. 6. 46-48, the splen- 
did presents, consisting of horses, 
cattle, and ush(ras yoked four toge- 
ther — (Roth in the St. Petersburg 
Diet, explains ushtra as ‘ buffalo, 
humped bull;* generally it means 
‘ camel’) — which, to the glory of the 
Yildvas, he received wijilst residing 
with Tirimdira and Parsu. Or have 
we here only a single person, Tirini- 
dira Pars'll ? In the ^dukhiiyaiia 
Srauta-Sdtra, xvi. ii. 20, at least, 
he is understood as Tirimdira Pitra- 
savya. These names suggest Tiridateg 
and the Pei-sians; see LSt., iv. 379, n., 
but compare GiTard de Kialle, Revue 
de Linguht., iv. 227 (1872). Of 
course, we must not think of the 


the race from these seats towards the east, beyond the 
Sarasvati and over Hindustan as far as the Ganges, can be 
traced in the later portions of the Vedic writings almost 
step by step. The writings of the following period, that 
of the epic, consist of accounts of the internal con|licts 
among the conquerors of Hindustan themselves, as, for 
instance, the Maha-Bharata ; or of the farther spread of 
Brahmanism towards the soxith, as, for instance, the Ea- 
mayana. If we connect with this the first fairly accurate 
information about India which we have from a Greek 
source, viz., from Megasthen es,* it becomes clear that at 
the time of this writer the Brahmanising of Hindustdn was 
already completed, while at the time of the Periplus (see 
Lassen, I. AK., ii. 150, n.; I. St., ii. 192) the very south- 
ernmost point of the Dekhan had already become a seat of 
the worship of the wife of ^iva. What a series of years, 
of centuries, must necessarily have elapsed before this 
boundless tract of country, inhabited by wild and vigorous 
tribes, could have been brought over to Brahmanism ! ! It 
may perhaps here be objected that the races and tribes 
found by Alexander on the banks of the Indus appear to 
stand entirely on a Vedic, and not on a Brahmanical foot- 
ing. As a matter of fact this is true ; but we should not 
be justified in drawing from this any conclusion whatever 
with regard to India itself. For these peoples of the Pan- 
jab never submitted to the Brahmanical order of things, 
but always retained their ancient Vedic standpoint, free 
and independent, without either priestly domination or 
system of caste. For this reason, too, they were the ob- 
jects of a cordial hatred on the part of their kinsmen, who 
had wandered farther on, and on this account also Buddh- 
ism gained an easy entrance among them. 

Pi^rsians after Cyrus : that, would 
bring us too far down. But (ho Per- 
sians wore so called, and liad their 
own princes, even before the time of 
Cyrus. Or ought we rather, as sug- 
gested by Olshausei; in the Berliner 
M onatsberichte (1874), p. 708, to 
think of the Parthavas, i.e., Parthi- 
ans, who aa well as Pdr^as are men- 
tioned in the titne of the Acheeme- 
nidse ? The derivation, hitherto 

current^ of tlie word Tiri in Tiridates, 
&C., from the Puhlavi fir = Zend 
trya (given, e'.g., by M. Brdal, De 

Pe^'sicu (1S63), pp. 9, lo), 

is hardly justified, 

* Who as ambassador of Seleucus 
resided hji* some time at the court 
of Chandragupta. His reports are 
preserved to us chiefly inthe'Ii'^i^fd 
of Arrian, who lived in the second 
century A.D, 


And while the claims of the written records of Indian 
literature to a high antiquity — its beginnings may per- 
haps be traced back even to the time when tlie Indo- 
Aryans still dwelt together with the Persa- Aryans — are 
thus indisputably proved by external, geographical testi- 
mony, the internal evidence in the same direction which 
may be gathered from their contents, is no less conclusive. 
In the songs of the Rik, the robust spirit of the people 
gives expression to the feeling of its relation to nature, 
with a spontaneous freshness and simplicity ; the powers 
of nature are worshipped as superior beings, and their 
kindly aid besought within their several spheres. Begin- 
ning with this nature- worship, which everywhere recog- 
nises only the individual phenomena of nature, and these 
in the first instance as superhuman, we trace in Indian 
literature the progress of the Hindu people through almost 
all the pliases of religious development through which the 
human mind generally has passed. The individual pheno- 
mena of nature, which at first impress the imagination as 
being superliuman, are gradually classified within their 
diilerent spheres ; and a certain unity is discovered among 
them. Thus we arrive at a number of divine beings, eacli 
exercising supreme sway within its particular province, 
whose influence is in course of time further extended to 
the corresponding events of human life, while at the same 
time they are endowed with human attributes and organs. 
The number — already considerable— of these natural 
deities, these regents of the powers of nature, is further 
increased by the addition of abstractions, taken from ethi- 
cal relations ; and to these as to the other deities divine 
powers, personal existence, and activity are ascribed. Into 
this multitude of divine figures, the spirit of inquiry seeks 
at a later stage to introduce order, by classifying and 
co-ordinating them according to their principal bearings. 
The principle followed in this distribution is, like the con 
ception of the deities themselves, entirely borrow ed from 
the contemplation of nature. We have tlie gods \vlio act 
in the heavens, in the air, upon the earth ; and of tliese 
the sun, the wind, and fire are recognised as the main repre- 
sentatives and rulers respectively. These three gradually 
obtain precedence over all the other gods, who are only 
looked upon as their creatures and servants. Strength- 


ened by these classifications, speculation presses on and 
seeks to establish the relative position of these three 
deities, and to arrive at unity for the supiieme Being. This 
is accomplished either speculatively, by actually assuming 
such a supreme and purely absolute Being, viz., “Brah- 
man ” (neut.), to whom these three in their turn stand 
in the relation of creatures, of servants only; or arbi- 
trarily, according as one or other of the three is worshipped 
M the supreme god. The sun-god seems in the first 
instance to have been promoted to this honour ; the Persa- 
Aryans at all events retained this standpoint, of course 
extending it still further; and in the older parts of the 
Brahmanas also — to which rather than to the Samhitas 
the Avesta is related in respect of age and contents — we 
find the sun-god here and there exalted far above the other 
deities (jtrasantd devdTidni). We also find ample traces of 
this in the forms of worship, which so often preserve 
relics of antiquity Nay, as “ Brahman” (masc.), he has 
in theory retained this position, down even to the latest 
times, although in a very colourless manner. His col- 
leagues, the ail' and fire gods, in consequence of their 
much more direct and sensible influence, by degrees ob- 
tained complete possession of the supreme power, though 
constantly in conflict with each other. Their worship has 
passed through a long series of different phases, and it 
is evidently the same which Megasthenes found in Hin- 
dustan,* and which at the time of the Periplus had pene- 
trated, though in a form already very corrupt, as far as the 
southernmost point of the Dekhan. 

But while we are thus justified in assuming a high 
antiquity for Indian literature, on external geographical 
grounds, as well as on internal evidence, connected with 
the history of the Hindii religion,® the case is sufi&ciently 
unsatisfactory, when we come to look for (^finite chrono- 

® Cf. my paper, Zwei vcdische TexU 
iiher Ominannd Porteata (1859), pp. 


* To these, thirdly, we have to 
add evidence derived from the lan- 
guage. The edicts of Piyadasi, 
whose date is fixed by the mention 
therein of Greek kings, and even of 
Alexander himself, are written in 

popular dialects, for whose gradual 
development out of the language of 
the Vedic hymns into this form it is 
absolutely necessary to postulate the 
la]>se of a series of centuries. 

* According to Strabo,^ p. 117, 
Atovvaos (Rudra, Soma, Siva) was 
worshipped in the mountains, 'Hpa< 
(Indra, Yish](^u) in the plain. 


logical dates. We must reconcile ourselves to the fact 
that any such search will, as a general rule, be absolutely 
fruitless. It is only in the case of those branches of 
literature which also became known abroad, and also in 
regard to the last few centuries, when either the dates of 
manuscripts, or the data given in the introductions or 
closing observations of the works themselves, furnisli us 
some guidance, that we can expect any result. Apart 
from this, an internal chronology based on the character 
of the works themselves, and on the quotations, &c., 
therein contained, is the only one possible. 

Indian literature di\ddes itself into two great periods, 
the Vedic and the Sanskrit. Turning now to the former, 
or Vedic. period, I proceed to give a preliminary general 
outline of it before entering into the details 

( 8 ) 




We have to distinguish four Vedas— the Rig-Veda, the 
Sama-Veda, the Yajur-Veda, which is in a double form, 
and the Atharva-Veda. Each of these is again subdivided 
into three distinct parts — Samhita, Brahmana, and Sdtra. 

Their relation to each other is as follows : — 

The Samhitd * of the Rik is purely a lyrical collection, 
comprising the store of Song w hich the Hindiis brought 
with them from their ancient homes on the banks of the 
Indus, and which they had there used for " invoking pro- 
sperity on themselves and their flocks, in their adoration 
of the dawn, in celebration of the struggle between the 
god who wields the lightning and the power of darkness, 
and in rendering thanks to the heavenly beings for pre- 
servation in battle.” f The songs are here classified 
according to the families of poets to which they are as- 
cribed. The principle of classification is consequently, so 
to speak, a purely scientific one. It is therefore possible, 
though more cannot be said, that the redaction of the text 
may be of later date than that of the two Samhitas which 

* The name Sanihitd (collection) vidyA, avddhydya, t^hyayana, also 
first occurs in the so-called Aran- ‘Veda’ alone. It k in the Stitras 
yakas or latest supplements to the that we firet find the term Chhandas 
Briihinanas, and in the ; but specially applied to the Sa^bi^s, 
whether in the above meaning, is and more particularly m Panini, 
not as yet certain. The names by by whom Rishi^ Nigama, Mantra (?) 
which the Saiiihitds are designated are also employed in the same 

in the Brdhnianas are— either rkhah, manner. „ , , , 

tdmdni, yajilAshi,-or Rigveda, Sd- t See Roth, Zur Litteraturund 

maveda, Yajurveda, — or Bahvyichas, Oesmichte des Weda^ p. o (tstutt- 

Chhandogas, Adhvaryus, — or t/rayi gart, 1846). 



will come next under our consideration, and which, pro- 
viding as they do for a practical want, became necessary 
immediately upon the institution of a worship with a fixed 
ritual. For the Samhita of the Sdmau, and both the 
Samhitas of the Yajus, consist only of such ridms (verses), 
and sacrificial formulas as had to be recited at the cere- 
monies of the Soma offering and other sacrifices, and in 
the same order in which they were practically used ; at 
least, we know for certain, that this is the case in the 
Yajus. The Samhita of the Saman contains uotliing but 
verses {richas)', those of the Yajus, sentences in prose 
also. The former, the richas, all recur, with a few ex- 
ceptions, in the Rik-Samhitd, so that the Sama-Sainhita 
is nothing more than an extract from the songs of the 
latter, of the verses applied to the Soma offering. Now 
the richas found in the Sama-Samhita and Yajuh-Samhita 
appear in part in a very altered form, deviating consi- 
derably from the text of the Rik, the Rik-Samhita. Of 
this a triple explanation is possible. First, these read- 
ings may be earlier and more original than those of the 
Rik, liturgical use having protected them from alteraition, 
while the simple song, not being immediately connected 
with the sacred rite, was less scrupulously preserved. Or, 
secondly, they may be later than those of the Rik, and 
may have arisen from the necessity of precisely adapting 
the text to the meaning attributed to the verse in its 
application to the ceremony. Or, lastly, they may be of 
equal authority with those of the Rik, the discrepancies 
being merely occasioned by the variety of districts and 
families in which they were used, the text being most 
authentic in the district and family in which it originated, 
and less so in those to which it subsequently passed. All 
three methods of explanation are alike correct, and in 
each particular case they must all be kept in view. But 
if we look more closely at the relation of these verses, it 
may be stated thus : The richas occurring in the Sama- 
Sa-nihita generally stamp themselves as older and more 
original by the greater antiquity of tlieir grammatical 
forms; those in the two Samliitas of the Yajus, on the 
contrary, generally give the impression of having under- 
gone a secondary alteration. Instances which come 
under the third method of explanation are found in equal 



numbers, both in the Sdma-Samhitd and the Yajub- 
Sarahita. Altogether, too much stress cannot be laid on 
this point, namely, that the alterations which the songs 
and hymns underwent in the popular mouth during their * 
oral transmission, must in any case be regarded as very 
considerable; since preservation by means of writing is 
not to be thought of for this period. Indeed we can 
hardly admit it for the time of the Brdhmanas either, 
otherwise it would be difficult to account for the numerous 
deviations of the various schools with regard to the text 
of these works also, as well as for the great number of 
different schools (Sakhds) generally. 

But although the songs of the Rik, or the majority of 
them, were composed on the banks of the Indus, their 
final compilation and arrangement can only have taken 
place in India proper ; at what time, however, it is diffi- 
cult to say. Some portions come down to an age so recent, 
that the system of caste had already been organised ; and 
tradition itself, in ascribing to l^akalya and Panchala 
Babhravya a leading part in the arrangement of the Eik- 
Samhita, points us to the flourishing epoch of the Videhas 
and Panchdlas, as I shaU show hereafter. The Samhita 
of the Saman, being entirely borrowed from the Rik, gives 
no clue to the period of its origin ; only, in the fact that it 
contains no extracts from any of the later portions of the 
Rik, we have perhaps an indication that these were not 
then in existence. This, however, is a point not yet in- 
vestigated. As for the two Samhitas of the Yajus, we 
have in the prose portions peculiar to them, most distinct 
proofs that both originated in the eastern parts of Hin- 
dustan,^ in the country of the Kuriipanchalas, and that 
they belong to a period when the Brahnianical element 
had already gained the supremacy, although it had still to 
encounter many a hard struggle, and when at all events 
the hierarchy of the Brahmans, and the system of caste, 
were completely organised. Nay, it may be that we have 
even external grounds for supposing that the present re- 
daction of the Samhita of the White Yajus dates from 
the third century B.c. For Megasthenes mentions a people 
called MahavZivoi, and this name recurs in the Ma- 

^ Or rather to the east of the Indus, in Hindustan. 



dhyamdinas, the principal school of the White Yajus. 
More of this later on. 

The origin of the Atharva-Samhita dates al^o from the 
period when Brahmanism had become dominant. It is in 
other respects perfectly analogous to the Rik-Samhita, and 
contains the store of song of this Brahmanical epoch. 
Many of these songs are to be found also in the last, that 
is, the least ancient book of the Rik-Samhita. In the 

w • « 

latter they are the latest additions made at the time of 

its compilation ; in the Atharvan they are the proper and 

natural utterance of the present. The spirit of the two 

collections is indeed entirely different. In the Rik there 

breathes a lively natural feeling a warm love for nature j 
while in the Atharvan ilicrc prevails, on the contrary, only 

an anxious dread of her evil spirits, and their magical 
powers. In the Rik v-e find the people in a state of free 
activity and independence; in the Atharvan we see it 
bound in the fetters of the hierarchy and of superstition. 
But the Atharva-Samhita likewise contains pieces of great 
antiquity, which may perhaps have belonged more to the 
people proper, to its lower grades; whereas the songs of 
the Rik appear rather to have been the especial property 
of the higher families.* It was not without a long struggle 
that the songs of the Atharvan were permitted to take 
their place as a fourth Veda. Tliere is no mention made 
of them in the more ancient portions of the Brdhmanas of 
the Rik, Saman, and Yajus ; indeed they only originated 
simultaneously with these Bi-ahmanas, and are therefore 
only alluded to in their later portions. 

We now come to the second part of Vedic literature, 
the Brdhmanas. 

The character of the Brahmanas f may be thus gene- 

•Thia surmise, based upon cer- 
tain passages in the Athaiwan, would 
certainly be at variance with the 
name ‘ Atharvdhgi rasas,’ borne by 
this Saiphitd ; according to which 
it would belong, on the contrary, to 
the most ancient and noble Brah- 
man families. But I have elsewhere 
advanced the conjecture, that this 
name was simply assumed in order 
to impart a greater sanctity to the 
eonteuts, see 7 . i. 295. [Zwi 

vedische Texte uher Omina und Por- 
tenia, pp. 346-348.] 

+ This term signifies ‘ that which 
ivlates to prayer, brahman' Brah- 
7 na 7 iit 8 elf means ‘ drawing forth,’ as 
well in a physical sense ‘producing,’ 
‘creating,’ as in a spiritual one ‘lift- 
ing up,’ ‘ elevating,’ ‘ strengthen- 
ing.’ The first mention of the name 
Bnihmana, in the above sense, is 
found in the Brdhmana of the White 
Yajus, and especially in its thir- 



rally defined : Their object is to connect the sacrificial 
songs and formulas with the sacrificial rite, by pointing 
out, on the one hand, their direct mutual relation ; and, on 
the other, their symbolical connection with each other. 
Ill setting forth the former, they give the particular ritual 
in its details : in illustrating the latter, they are either 
directly explanatory and an^ytic, dividing each formula 
into its constituent parts, or else they establish that con- 
nection dogmatically by the aid of tradition or specula- 
tion. We thus find in them the oldest rituals we have, 
the oldest linguistic explanations, the oldest traditional nar- 
ratives, and the oldest philosophical speculations. This 
peculiar character is common generally to all works of 
this class, yet they differ widely in details, according to 
their individual tendency, and according as they belong to 
this or that particular Veda. With respect to age they 
all date from the period of the transition from Vedic 
civilisation and culture to the Brahmanic mode of thought 
and social order. Nay, they help to bring about this very 
transition, and some of them belong rather to the time of 
its commencement, others rather to that of its termina- 
tion.* The Brahmanas originated from the opinions of 
individual sages, imparted by oral tradition, and preserved 
as well as supplemented in their families and by their 
disciples. The more numerous these separate traditions 
became, the more urgent became the necessity for bring- 
ing them into harmony with each other. To this end, as 
- time went on, compilations, comprising a variety of these 
materials, and in which the different opinions on each 
subject were uniformly traced to their original represen- 

t,<*eiith Viook. In wliere the 

explaiiaiinii of a cere- 
monial or other precept has alrcacly 
been given, we there find the ex- 
pression tasyoktam brdhmanam^ ‘of 
this the Bralunana has already been 
stated ; ’ whereas in the books pre- 
ceding the tiurteenth, we find in 
such cases tasyoktobandkuh' its con- 
nection has already been set forth,’ 
u- V. 6 o, ix. 351.] — Besides 

Bi'flhinana, Pravachana is also used 
in the Sdnia- Sutras, according to the 

c<»intnentary, in the same sense ; 
they also mention Aunbitthmana, a 
term which does not occur elsewhere 
except in Piinini. 

* Piiuini, iv, 3. 105, directly men- 
tions ‘ older {^urdnaprohta) Brdh- 
inanas and in contradistinction to 

t r 

these there must, of course, have 
been in existence in his day ‘more 
modern (or as the scholiast says, inU 
yakdj/i) Bi’dhmnnns.’ [See on this 
Qoldst.iicker, Pdnini^ p. 132, If., and 
my rejoinder in /. 6Y,, v. 64, if] 



tatives, were made iu different districts by individuals 
peculiaiiy qualified for the task. But whether these com- 
pilations or digests were now actually M'ritten down, or 
were still transmitted orally only, remains uncertain. The 
latter supposition would seem probable from the fact that 
of the same work we here and there find two texts en- 
tirely differing in their details. Nothing definite, how- 
ever, can be said on the subject, for in these cases there 
may possibly have been some fundamental difference in 
the original, or even a fresh treatment of the materials. 
It was, moreover, but natural that these compilers shoubl 
frequently come into collision and conflict with eacli 
other. Hence we have now and then to remark the 
exhibition of strong animosity against those who in the 
author’s opinion are heterodox. The preponderant in- 
fluence gradually gained by some of these works over the 
rest — ^whether by reason of their intrinsic value, or of the 
fact that their author appealed more to the hierarchical 
spirit* — has resulted, unfortunately for us, in the preserva- 
tion of these only, while works representative of the dis- 
puted opinions have for the most part disappeared. Here 
and there perhaps in India some fragments may still be 
found ; in general, however, here as everywhere in Indian 
literature, we encounter the lamentable fact that the 
works which, in the end, came off victorious, have almost 
entirely supplanted and effaced their predecessors. After 
all, a comparatively large number of Brahmanas is still 
extant — a circumstance which is evidently owing to their 
being each annexed to a particular Veda, as well as to the 
fact that a sort of petty jealousy had always prevailed 
among the families in wdiich the study of the different 
Vedas was hereditarily transmitted. Thus in the case of 
each Veda, such works at least as had come to be con- 
sidered of tlic highest authority have been preserved, 
although the practical significance of the Brahmanas was 

* The difficulty of their pieserva- writing in India, it is important to 
t^u ift also an important factor in point out that tlie want of suitable 
the case, as at Uiat time writing materials, in the North at least, be- 
either did not exist at all, or at any fore the iutroduciion of paper, must 
raw was but seldom employed, have been a great obstacle to its 
I In considering the question of general use,** — Burnell, oj 

the age and extent of the use of South Indian Pidceo(jraj>hyy p, lo.j 


gradually more and more lost, and passed over to^-the 
Sutras, &c. To the number of the Brahmanas, or recen- 
sions of the Samhitas, which were thus lost, belong those 
of the Vashkalas, Paingins, Bhallavins, ^atyayanins, 
Ktilabayins, Lamakayanins, ^ambuvis, Khaddyanins, and 
Salankayanins, which we find quoted on various occasions 
in writings of tliis class ; besides all the Chhandas works 
(Samhitas) specified in the gam, ‘Saunaka’ (Pan., iv. 3. 

106), whose names are not so much as mentioned else- 

The difference between the Brahmanas of the several 
Vedas as to subject-matter is essentially this : The Brah- 
manas of the Rik, in their exposition of the ritual, gene- 
rally specify those duties only which fell to the Hotar, or 
reciter of the richas, whose office it was to collect from the 
various hymns the verses suited to each particular occa- 
sion, as its iastra (canon). The Brahmanas of the Saman 
confine themselves to the duties of the Udgatar, or singer 
of the sdmans; the Brahmanas of the Yajus, to the duties 
of the Adhvaryu, or actual performer of the sacrifice. In 
the Brahmanas of the Rik, the order of the sacrificial per- 
formance is on the whole preserved, whereas the sequence 
of the hymns as they occur in the Rik-Samhita is not 
attended to at all. But in the Brdhmapas of the Sdman and 
Yajus, we find a difference corresponding to the fact that 
their Samhitas are already adapted to the proper order of 
tlie ritual. The Biahmana of the enters but sel- 
dom into the explanation of individual verses; the Brah- 
niana of the White Yajus, on the contrary, may be almost 
considered as a running dogmatic commeiitarv on its 
Samhita, to the order of which it adheres so strictly, that 
in the case of its omitting one or more vei’ses, we mi»ht 
perhaps be justified in concluding that they did not then 
form part of the Samhita. A supplement also has been 

. *1 i some of those books of the 
Sarnliita which were incorporated with it at a period sub- 
sequent to its original compilation, so that the Brahmana 
comprises 100 adhydyas instead of 60, as formerly seems 
to have been the case. The Brahmana of the Black 
Yajus does not, as we shall see further on, differ in its 
contents, but only in point of time, from its Samhitd. It 
is, in fact, a supplement to it. The Brahmana of the 


Atharvan is up to the present time unknown, though there 
are manuscripts of it in England.® 

Tlie common name for the Brahmana literature is Hruti, 
‘ hearing,’ ie., that which is subject of hearing, subject of 
exposition, of teaching, by which name their learned, and 
consequently exclusive, character is sufficiently intimated. 
In accordance with this we find in the works themselves, 
frequent warnings against intrusting the knowledge con- 
tained in them to any profane person. The name Sruti is 
not indeed mentioned in them, but only in the Siitras, 
though it is perfectly justified by the corresponding use of 
the verb ^ru which occurs in them frequently. 

The third stage in Vedic literature is represented by the 
Sutras.'^ Tliese are, upon the whole, essentially found&i 

® It has aiiiuo be«n published, see for taking exception to the etymo- 
below. It presents no sort of di- logy just proposed, and for rcgard- 
ivct iub rnal relation to the Ath. ing the signification ‘guidiug-line,* 
SarnhitiL *clue/ as the original one. [This is 

* The word Sutra in the above tbemeaniuggivenintheSt.Petors- 
Beiiseoccura first in the Madhukiin 4 <>, burg Dictionary. — The writing of 
one of the latest supplements to the the Indians is of Semitic origin; 
Bralimana of the White Yajus, next see Benfey, Indkn (in Ersek ami 
iu the two Grihya-Sfitras of tlie Rik, Gruber'*s Encydopmdia, 1840), p. 254; 
and finally in Pacini, It means my Induche Skizzen (1856), p. 127, 
* thread/ * band/ cf. Lat, suere. ff. ; Burnell, Einn. of South Indian 
Would it be correct to regard it as Pal.^ \\ 3, fF. Probably it served in 
an expression analogous to the Qer- the first instance merely for secular 
man (volume) ^ If so, the term purposes, and was only applied sub- 
would have to be understood of the sequently to literature. See Muller, 
fastening toget her of the leaves, and A 7 ic S. Lit., p. 507 ; /. v. 20, ff. ; 
would necessarily presuppose the I.Str., ii. 339. Goldstuckei»(Pdmn/', 
existence of writing (in the same 1S60, p. 26, ff) contends that the 
way, perliaps, as grantha does, a words sutra and granika must abso- 
term first occurring in Pdnini?). lutely be connected with writing. 
Inquiry into the origin of Indian See, however. I, 5 ^., v. 24, ff. ; xiii. 
writing has not, unfortunately, led 476.]- Kor does etymology lead 
to much result a.s yet. The oldest us to a more certain result in the 
inscriptions, acttording to Wilson, case of another word found in this 
date no earlier than the third century connection, viz., aksharay ‘syllable.' 
B.C. Nearclui.s, however, as is well Tliiswmrd does not seem to occur in 
knowui, mentions writing, and his this sense in the SainhiUl of the Rik 
time corresponds very well upon the (or Saman) ; it there rather signifies 
whole to the period to which we ‘imperishable.’ The connecting link 
must refer the origin of the Sutras, between this primary signification 
But as tliese were composed chiefly and the meaning ‘ syllable,' which is 
with a view to their being committed first mot with in the Saiphitil of tlie 
to memory — a fact which follows Yajus, might perhaps be the idea of 
from their form, and partly accounts >vriting, the latter being the making 
for it — there might be good grounds imperishable, as it were, of otherwisf 



on the Brdhmanas, and must he considered as their neces- 
sary supplement, as a farther advance in the path struck 
out hy the latter in the direction of more rigid system and 
formalism.^ While the Brdhmanas, with the view of ex- 
plaining the sacrifice and supporting it hy authority, &c., 
uniformly confine themselves to individual instdnces of 
ritual, interpretation, tradition, and speculation, subjecting 
these to copious dogmatic treatment, the object of the 
Siitras is to comprehend everything that had any reference 
whatever to these subjects. The mass of matter became 
too great ; there was risk of the tenor of the whole being 
lost in the details ; and it gradually became impossible to 
discuss all the different particulars consecutively. Diffuse 
discussion of the details had to be replaced by concise 
collective summaries of them. The utmost brevity was, 
however, requisite in condensing this great mass, in order 
to avoid overburdening the memory ; and this brevity 
ultimately led to a remarkably compressed and enigmatical 
style, which was more and more cultivated as the litera- 
ture of the Siitras became more independent, and in pro- 
portion as the resulting advantages became apparent. 
Thus the more ancient a Siitra, the more intelligible it is ; 
the more enigmatical it is, the more modern will it prove.* 
But the literature of the Siitras can by no means be 
said to rest entirely upon the Brahmanas, for these, as 
a rule, give too exclusive a prominence to the ritual of 
the sacrifice. Indeed, it is only one particular division of 
the Siitras — viz., the Kalpa-Siitras, aphorisms exclusively 
devoted to the consideration of this ritual — which bears 

fleeting nncl e^an^.'^cent words and 
8yllaV>les (^), Or is the notion of tlie 
imperishable Xoyos at the root of 
this signification ? [In the JCn'ala 
to the first German edition it was 
pointed out, on the authority <*f a 
communication received from Pro- 
fessor Aufrecht, that al'shara is twnce 
used in the Rik of the ‘ measuring of 

gpeech,’ viz., i. 164. 24 (47); 
ix. 13. 3, and consequently may 
there meau ‘syllable.’ According to 
t\ui St. Petersburg Dictionary, this 
laiti-r meaning is to be derived from 
the idea of ‘ the constant, simple ’ ele- 
ment in language.] 

* (.>u the mutual relations of the 
BrihinuTias and Siitras, see also /. St., 

viii. 76/77 ; ix. 353> 354- 

* Precisely as in tlie case of the 

Brahmanas, so also in the case of the 
Kalpas, i.c., Kalpa-Sutras, P*Inini, 
iv. 3. 105, distinguishes those com- 
posed by the ancients frtmi those 
that arc nearer to bis own time. 

On the sacrifice and sacrificial 
implements of the 6rauta-Sfitras, see 
M. Muller in Z. D. Af.ft, IX. xxxvi.- 
Ixxxii. ; Hang's notes to his transla- 
tion of the Aitareya-Brahmana ; and 
my paper, Ziir Kenntniss des vedischen 
Op/errilttals, /. St.^ x. xiii, 



the special name of ^rauta- Sutras, i.e., “ Siitras founded 
on tlie Sruti.” The sources of the other Siitras must be 
sought elsewhere. 

Side by side with tlie ^rauta-Siiti'as we are met by a 
second family of ritual Sutras, the so-called Gri by a- Siitras, 
which treat of domestic ceremonies, those celebrated at 
birth and before it, at marriage, as well as at death and 
after it. The origin of these works is sufficiently indi- 
cated by their title, since, in addition to the name of 
Grihya-Siitras, they also bear that of Smdrta- Siitras, i.e., 
“ Siitras founded on the Smriti” Sviriti, ‘ memory,’ i.e., 
that which is the subject of memory, can evidently only 
be distinguished from ‘ hearing,’ i.e., that which is 

the subject of hearing, in so far as the former impresses 
itself on the memory directly, without special instruction 
and provision for the purpose. It belongs to all, it is the 
property of the whole people, it is supported by the con- 
sciousness of all, and does not therefore need to be spe- 
cially inculcated. Custom and law are common property 
and accessible to all ; ritual, on the contrary, though in 
like manner arising originally from the common conscious- 
ness, is developed in its details by the speculations and 
suggestions of individuals, and remains so I'ar the property 
of tlie few, who, favoured by external circumstances, under- 
stand how to insjure the people with a due awe of the 
importance and saic iity of their institutions. It is not, 
however, to be assumed from this that Smriti, custom and 
law, did not also undergo considerable alterations in the 
course of time. The mass of the immigrants had a great 
^ deal too much on tlieir hands in the subjugation of the 
aborigines to be in a position to occupy themselves with 
other matters. Their whole energies had, in the first in- 
stance, to be concentrat(!d upon the necessity of holding 
their own against tlie enemy. AVhen this had been 
effected, and resistance was broken down, they awoke 
suddenly to find themselves bound and shackled in the 
hands of other and far more powerful enemies ; or rather, 
they did not awake at all ; their physical powers had been 
so long and so exclusively exercised and expended to the 
detriment of their intellectual energy, that the latter had 
gradually dwindled away altogether. The history of these 
new enemies was this ; The knowTedge of the ancient songs 


with which, in their ancient homes, the Tn< had wor- 
shipped the powers of nature, and the knowledge of the 
ritual connected with these songs, became more and more 
the exclusive property of those whose ancestors perhaps 
composed them, and in whose families this knowledge had 
been hereditary. These same families remained in the 
possession of the traditions connected with them, and 
which were necessary to their explanation. To strangers 
in a foreign country, anything brought with them from 
home becomes invested with a halo of sacredness; and 
thus it came about that these families of singers became 
families of priests, whose influence was more and more 
consolidated in proportion as the distance between the 
people and their former home increased, and the more 
their ancient institutions were banished from their minds 
by external struggles. The guardians of the ancestral 
customs, of the primitive forms of worship, took an in- 
creasingly prominent position, became the representatives 
of these, and, finally, the representatives of the Divine 
itself. Eor so ably had they used their opportunities, that 
they succeeded in founding a hierarchy the like of which 
the world has never seen. To this position it would have 
been scarcely possible for them to attain but for the ener- 
vating climate of E^dustan, and the mode of life induced 
by it, which exercised a deteriorating influence upon a 
race unaccustomed to it. The families also of the petty 
kings who had formerly reigned over individual tribes, 
held a more prominent position in the larger kingdoms 
which were of necessity founded in Hindustan ; and thus 
arose the military caste. Lastly, the people proper, the 
Yi^as, or settlers, united to form a third caste, and they in 
their turn naturally reserved to themselves prerogatives 
over the fourth caste, or ^lidras. This last was composed 
of various mixed elements, partly, perhaps, of an Aryan 
race which had settled earlier in India, partly of the 
aborigines themselves, and partly again of those among 
the immigrants, or their Western kinsmen, who refused 
adherence to the new Brahmanical order. The royal 

♦ Who were distinguished bytheir colour, for caste. [See /. St., x. 4 
very colour from the three other lo,] 

ijaates ; hence the name vajyiaj t.e. 


famiKes, the warriors, who, it may be supposed, strenu- 
ously supported the priesthood so long as it was a ques- 
tion of robbing the people of their rights, now that this 
was effected turned against their former allies, and sought 
to throw off the yoke that was likewise laid upon them. 
These efforts were, liowev'er, unavailing; the colossus was 
too firmly established. Obscure legends and isolated 
allusions are the only records left to us in the later 
writings, of the sacrilegious hands which ventured to at- 
tack the sacred and divinely consecrated majesty of the 
Bralimans; and these are careful to note, at the same 
time, the terrible punishments which befell those impious 

offenders. The fame of many a Barbarossa has here 
passed away and been forgotten ! 

The Smarta- Sutras, which led to this digression, gene- 
rally exhibit the complete standpoint of Brahmanism. 
Whether in the form of actual records or of compositions 
orally transmitted, they in any case date from a period when 
moi e than men cared to lose of the Smriti— that precious 
tradition passed on from generation to generation — was in 
danger of perishing. Though, as we have just seen, it had 
undeigone considerable modifications, even in the families 
who guarded it, through tlui influence of the Brahmans, 
yet this influence was chiefly exercised with reference 
to its political bearings, halving domestic manners and 
customs untouched in their ancient form; so that these 
works cover a rich treasure "Of ideas and conceptions of 
extreme antiquity. It is in them also that we have to 

look for the beginnings of the Hindu legal literature,i2 

whose subject-matter, indeed, in part corresjionds exactly 
to theirs, and whose authors bear for the most part the 
same names as those of the Uriliya-Sutras. With the 
strictly legal portions of the law-books, tliose dealing with 

^^5, ritual relating to birth 
we Speijer’s book on the Jdiakurma 
(Leyden, 1872) — for the marriage 
^remonies, Haae's paper, V^h r die 

der alten Inder, 

With additions by myself in /. 
^207, ffi ; also my paper Veduche 

P. 177, ff. 

(I^)— on the burial of the de.vl, 
AOth tn Z. Tk U n .o- 

(1854), anil M. Muller, ihuL, IX. 
i--x.\xvi. (1855) ; ami lastly, 0. Don- 
ner s P nidajdiHijiijna (1870), 

Besides the Orihya-StitraH we 
find some texts direct ly called Dhar- 
nia-Sutras, or Sdmayilclifirika-Stitras, 
which are specilied as portions of 
Srauta-Shtras, but which were no 
doubt subsequently inserted into 


civil law, criminal law, and political law, we do not, it ia 
true, find more than a few points of connection in these 
Sutras ; but probably these branches were not codified at 
all until the pressure of actual imminent danger made it 
necessary to establish them on a secure foundation. The 
risk of their gradually dying out was, owing to the con- 
stant operation of the factors involved, not so great as in 
the case of domestic customs. But a far more real peril 
threatened them in the fierce assaults directed against the 
Brahmanical polity by the gradually increasing power of 
Buddhism. Buddhism originally proceeded purely from 
theoretical heterodoxy regarding the relation of matter to 
spirit, and similar questions; but in course of time it 
addressed itself to practical points of religion and worship, 
and thencefortli it imperilled the very existence of Brah- 
manism, since the military caste and the oppressed classes 
of the peojde generally availed tliemselves of its aid in 
order to throw off the overwhelming yoke of priestly 
domination. The statement of Megasthenes, that the 
Indians in his time administered law only evno fivq , 

‘ from memory,’ I hold therefore to be perfectly correct, 
and I can see no grounds for the view that iivrifir) is but a 
mistranslation of Smriti in the sense of Smriti-l^astra, ‘ a 
treatise on Smriti.’* For the above-mentioned reason, 
however— -in consequence of the development of Bud- 
dhism into an anti-Brahmanical religion — the case may 
have altered soon afterwards, and a code, that of Manu, 
for example (founded on tlie Manava Grihya-Sutra), may 
have been drawn up. But this work belongs not to the 
close of the Vedic, but to the beginning of the following 

• 1 O o o 


As we have found, in the Smriti, an independent basis for 
tlieGrihya-Sutras — in addition to theBrahmanas, where but 
few points of contact with these Sutras can be traced — so 
too sliall we find an independent basis for those Siitras 
the contents of vdiich relate to language. In this case it 
is in the recitation of the songs and formulas at the sac- 
rifice tliat we shall find it. Although, accordingly, these 


* This latter view has been best nell, Elements of S, Ind. Paioeogr., 
Hv.t forth by Schwanbeck, Megets- p. 4,] ^ 

theneSy pp, 50, 51. [But see also Bur- 



S\itras stand on a level with the Brdhmanas, which owe 
their orij^in to the same source, yet this must be uudor- 
Btood as applying only to tliose views on linguistic rela- 
tions which, being presupposed in the Sutras, must be 
long anterior to them. It must not be taken as applying 
to the works themselves, inasmuch as they present the 
results of tliese antecedent investigations in a collected 
and systematic form. Obviously also, it was a luucli more 
natural thing to attempt, in the first instance, to elucidate 
the relation of the prayer to tlic sacrifice, tlian to make 
the form in which the prayer itself was drawn up a sub- 
ject of investigation. The more sacred the sacrificial per- 
formance grew, and the more fixed the form of worship 
gradually became, the greater became the importance of 
the prayers belonging to it, and the stronger their claim to 
the utmost possible purity and safety. To effect this, it 
was necessary, first, to fix the text of the prayers ; secondly, 
to establish a correct pronunciation and recitation; and, 
lastly, to preserve the tradition of their origin. It was 
only after the lapse of time, and when by degrees? their 
literal sense had become foreign to the phase into which ihe 
language had passed — and this was of course much later 
the” case with the priests, who were familiar with them, 
than with the people at large — that it became necessary 
to take precautions for securing and establishing the sense 
also. To attain all these objects, those most conversant 
with the subject were obliged to give instruction to the 
ignorant, and circles were thus formed around them of 
travelling scholars, who made pilgrimages from one teacher 
to anotiior according as they were attracted by the fame 
of special learning. These researches were naturally not 
confined to questions of language, but embraced the whole 
range of Brahmanical theology, extending in like manner 
to questions of worship, dogma, and speculation, all of 
which, indeed, were closely interwoven with each other. 
We must, at any rate, assume among the Brahmans of this 
period a very stirring intellectual life, in which even the 
women took an active part, and which accounts still 
further for the superiority maintained and exercised by the 
Brahmans over the rest of the people. Nor did the mili- 
tary caste hold aloof from these inquiries, especially alter 
they had succeeded in securing a time of repose from 



external warfare. We have here a faithful copy of the 
scholastic period of the Middle Ages; sovereigns whose 
courts fonn the centres of intellectual life ; Brahmans who 
with lively emulation carry on their inquiries into the 
highest questions the human mind can propound ; women 
who with enthusiastic ardour plunge into the mysteries 
of speculation, impressing and astonishing men by the 
depth and loftiness of their opinions, and who — while in 
a state w’hich, judging from description, seems to have been 
a kind of somnambulism — solve the questions proposed to 
them on sacred subjects. As to the quality of their solu- 
tions, and the value of aU these inquiries generally, that 
is another matter. But neither have the scholastic sub- 
tleties any absolute worth in themselves ; it is only the 
strivinc: and the effort which ennobles the character of 


any such period. 

The advance made by linguistic research during this 
epoch was very considerable. It was then that the text 
of the prayers was fixed, that the redaction of the various 
Samhitas took place. By degrees, very extensive pre- 
cautions were taken for this purpose. For their study 
(Patha), as well as for the different methods of preserving 
them — whether by writing or by memory, for either is 
possible^* — such special injunctions are given, that it seems 

All the technical terms, how- by the rest of the Brahmans. On 
ever, which occur for study of the the other hand, Goldstiieker, Boht- 
Vedaaiid the like, uniformly refer lii»j:k, Whitney, and Roth {Dtr 
to speaking and reciting only, and Athm'vaveda in Kashmir ^ p. lo), are 
thereby point to exclusively oral of the opposite opinion, holding, in 
tradition. The writing down of the particular, that the authors of the 
Vedic texts seems indeed not to Prdtifelkhyas must have had written 
have taken place until a coinpara- texts before them. Benfey also 
lively late periiid. See/. i8, formerly shared this view, but re- 
flf. (1861). Miiller, Anc, S, Lii.y p. cently {EinUxiung in die Gramma- 
507, ft* (1859) : Westergaard, Uiber lik der vcd. Sprache, p. 31), lie has 
den dltesten ZeitraxLin dex' indischxn expressed the belief that the Vedic 
Geschichie (i860, German transla- texts were only committed to writ- 
tion 1862, p. 42, ff,); and Hang, ing at a late date, long subse- 
Ueher das Wesen des vediseken Ac- quent to their ‘ Bur- 
ce«/s(i873, p, i6, fif.), have declared nell also, I, c., p. 10, is of opinion 
themselves in favour of this theory, that, amongst other things, the very 
Hang thinks that these Brahmans sci^rcity of the material for writing 
who were converted to Buddhism in ancient times “ almost precludes 
were tlie first who consigned the the existence of MSS. of books or 
Veda to writing — for poUuuical pur- long documents.*^ 
poses — and that they were followed 



all but impossible that any alteration in the text, except 
in the form of interpolation, can have taken place since. 
These directions, as well as those relating to the pronun- 
ciation and recitation of the words, are laid down in the 
Pralilakhya-Siitras, writings with which we have but 
recently been made acquainted.* Such a Prati^akhya- 
Sutra uniformly attaches itself to the Samhila of a single 
Veda only, but it embraces all the schools belonging to it ; 
it gives the general regulations as to the nature of the 
sounds employed, the euphonic rules obsei'ved, the accent 
and its modifications, the modulation of the voice, &c. 
Further, all the individual cases in which peculiar phonetic 
or other changes are observed are specially pointed out ; 
and we are in this way supplied with an excellent critical 
mehns of arriving at the form of the text of each Sarnhita 
at tlie time when its Prati^ilkhya was composed, if we 
find in any part of the Samhitd phonetic peculiarities 
which we are unable to trace in its Prati^akhya, we may 
rest assured that at that period this part did not yet 
belong to the Sainhita. The directions as to the recital of 
the Veda, i.e., of its Samhita,t in the scliools — each indivi- 
dual word being repeated in a variety of connections — pre- 
sent a very lively picture of the care with which these 
studies were pursued. 

For the knowledge of metre also, rich materials have 
been handed down to us in the Sutras. The singers of 
• the hymns themselves must naturally have been cognisant 
of the metrical laws observed in them. But we also find 
the technical names of some metros now and then men- 
tioned in the later songs of the Rik. In the Brahmanas 
the oddest tricks are played with tliem, and their harmony 
is in some mystical fiishion brought into connection with 
the harmony of the world, in fact stated to be its funda- 

By Both in his essays, Zur separately in their original form, 
lAttcratur und Ocschichtc dcs Wedft, unaffected by saindhi, i.e., the influ- 
P- 53 » ff- (translated in Jonrn. As, ence of the words which iinmedi- 
Benpaly January 1848, p, 6, ff,). ately precede and follow. Whatever 
This indeed is the real purpose else, over and above tliis, is found 
of the Prttti&ikhya.s, namely, to in the Prdti&ikhyas is meivly acces- 
show^ how the continuous Sar|ihibi sory matter. See Whitney in Jour- 
text ia to be reconstructed out of nal Am. Or. Soc.y iv. 259 (1853). 
we Pada text^ in which the indivi- + Strictly speaking, only these 
anal worda of the text are given (the Saiphitds) are Veda. 



mental cause. The simple minds of these thinkers were 
too much charmed by their rhythm not to he led into 
these and similar symholisings. The further development 
of metre afterwards led to special inquiries into its laws. 
Such investigations have been preserved to us, both in 
Siitr^ “ treating directly of metre, e.^r., the Nidana-Siitra, 
and in the Anula^manis, a peculiar class of works, which, 
adhering to the order of each Sarnhita, assign a poet, a 
metre, and a deity to each song or prayer. They may, 
therefore, perhaps belong to a later period than most of 
the Siitras, to a time when the text of each Saraliita was 
already extant in its final form, and distributed as we 
there find it into larger and smaller sections for the better 
regulation of its study. One of the smallest sections 
formed the pupil’s task on each occasion. — ^The preserva- 
tion of the tradition concerning the authors and the ori'dn 
of the prayers is too intimately connected herewith to be 
dissociated from the linguistic Sutras, although the class 
of works to which it gave rise is of an entirely different 
character. The most ancient of such traditions are to be 
found, as above stated, in the Brahmanas themselves. These 
latter also contain legends regarding the origin and the 
author of this or that particular form of worship ; and on 
such occasions the Brdhmana frequently appeals to Gathas, 
or stanzas, preserved by oral transmission among the 
people. It is evidently in these legends that we must 
look for the origin of the more extensive Itiliasas and 
Puranas, works which but enlarged the range of their sub- 
ject, but which in every otlicr respect proceeded after the 
same fashion, as is shown by several of the earlier frag- 
ments preserved, e.g., in the Malul-Bliarata. The most 
ancient work of the kind hitherto known is the Brihad- 
devata by ^auuaka, in MoJeas, which, however, strictly fol- 
lows the order of the Rik-Samhita, and proves by its very 
title that it lias only an accidental connection with this 
class of works. Its object properly is to specify the deity 
for each verse of the Rik-Samliita. But in so doing, it 
supports its views with so many legends, that we are fully 
justified in classing it here. It, however, like the other 
Anukramanfs, belongs to a much later period than most 

“ See Part i. of my paper on Indian Prosody, I. St., viii. i, £f. (1863). 



of the Siitras, since it presupposes Yaska, the author of 
the Nirukti, of whom I have to speak presently ; it is, in 
fact, essentially based upon his work. [See Adalb. Kuhn 

in 7. /S'i., i. IOI-I20.] 

It was remarked above, that the investigations into the 
literal sense of the prayers only began when this sense 
had ofradually become somewhat obscure, and that, as this 
could not be the case among the priests, who were fami- 
liar with it, so soon as amongst the rest of the people, the 
language of the latter may at that time have undergone 
considerable modifications. The first step taken to ren- 
der the prayers intelligible was to make a collection of 
synonyms, which, by virtue of their very arrangement, ex- 
plained themselves, and of specially obsolete words, of wdiich 
separate interpretations were then given orally. These 
collected words were called, from their being “ranked,’' 
“ strung together,” Nigranthu, corrupted into Mghantu* 
and those occupied with them Naighantukas. One work 
of this kind has been actually preserved to us.^® It is in 
five books, of which the three first contain synonyms ; tlie 
fourth, a list of specially difficult Vedic words ; and the 
fifth, a classification of the various divine personages who 
figure in the Veda. 'We also possess one of tlie ancient 
expositions of this work, a commentary on it, called 
NirvMi, “ interpretation,” of which Yaska is said to be the 
author. It consists of twelve books, to which two others 
having no proper connection with them w'ere afterwards 
added. It is reckoned by the Indians among the so-called 
Veddflgas, together with ^iksha, Chhandas, and Jyotisha 
— three very late treatises on phonetics, metre, and astro- 
nomical calculations — and also with Kalpa and Vya- 
karana, i.e., ceremonial and grammar, two general cate- 
gories of literary works. The four first names likewise 
originally signified the class in general,^^ and it was only 
later that they were applied to the four individual works 


* See llotli, Introtluction to the Sikisha still continues to \)e the 

Nirukti, p. xii. name of a sjiccies. A conHiderable 

To this plaon l)cli)ng, further, the number of treatises so ciititie<l have 
Nighan^ii to the Atharvu-S., men- recently been fountl, and nioiv are 
tioned by Hang (cf. L St., ix. 175, constantly being brought to light. 
176,) nnd the Nigama-Parisishla of Cf. Kielhorn, L St,, xiv. 160. 
the White Yaj us. 



now specially designated by those titles. It is in Ydska’s 
work, the Nirukti, that we find the first general notions of 
grammar. Starting from the phonetic rules, the observ- 
ance of which the Prati^dkhya-Sdtras had already estab- 
lished with so much minuteness — but only for each of the 
Veda-Sainhitas — advance was no doubt gradually made, in 
the first place, to a general view of the subject of phone- 
tics, and thence to the remaining portions of the domain 
of language. Inflection, derivation, and composition were 
recognised and distinguished, and manifold reflections 
were made upon the modifications thereby occasioned in 
the meaning of the root, Yaska mentions a considerable 
number of grammatical teachers who preceded him, some 
by name individually, others generally under the name of 
Nairuktas, Vaiyakaranas, from which we may gather that 
a very brisk activity prevailed in this branch of study. 
To judge from a passage in the Kauslhtaki-Brahmana, 
linguistic research must have been carried on with pecu- 
liar enthusiasm in the North of India; and accordingly, it 
is the northern, or rather the north-western district of 
India that gave birth to the grammarian who is to be 
looked upon as the father of Sanskrit grammar, Panini. 
Now, if Yaska himself must be considered as belonging 
only to the last stages of the Vedic period, Panini — from 
Yaska to whom is a great leap — must have lived at the 
very close of it, or even at the beginning of the next 
period. Advance from the simple designation of gram- 
matical words by means of terms corresponding to them 
in sense, which we find in Yaska, to the algebraic symbols 
of Panini, implies a great amount of study in the interval. 
Besides, Panini himself presupposes some such symbols 
as already known; he cannot therefore be regarded as 
having invented, but only as having consistently carried 
out a method which is certainly in a most eminent degree 
suited to its purpose. 

Lastly, Philosophical Speculation also had its peculiar 
development contemporaneously with, and subsequently 
to, the Brahrnanas. It is in this field and in that of 
grammar that the Indian mind attained the highest pitch 
of its marvellous fertility in subtle distinctions, however 
abstruse or naive, on the other hand, the method may 
occasionally be. 



Several hymns of a speculative purport in the last book 
of the Rik-Samhita testify to a great depth and concen- 
tration of reflection upon the fundamental cause of tilings, 
necessarily implying a long ])eriod of philosophical research 
in a preceding age. This is borne out by the old renown 
of Indian wisdom, by the reports of the eompanions of 
Alexander as to the Indian gymnosophists, &c. 

It was inevitable that at an early stage, and as soon as 
speculation had acquired some vigour, different opinions 
and starting-points should assert themselves, more espe- 
cially regarding the origin of creation ; for this, the most 
mysterious and difficult problem of all, was at the same 
time the favourite one. Accordingly, in each of th e Brah- 
manas, one at least, or it may be more, accounts on the 
subject may be met with ; while in the more extensive 
works of this class we find a great number of different 
conjectures with regard to cosmogony. One of the prin- 
cipal points of difference naturally was whether indiscrete 
matter or spirit v^as to be assumed as the Birst Cause. 
The latter theory became gradually the orthodox one, and 
is therefore the one most frequently, and indeed almost 
exclusively, represented in the Brahmanas. From among 
the adlierents of the former view, wliich came by degrees 
to be regarded as heterodox, there arose, as thought de- 
veloped, enemies still more dangerous to orthodoxy, who, 
although they confined themselves in the first place solely 
to the province of theoiy, before long threw themselves 
into practical questions also, and eventually became the 
founders of the form of belief known to us as Buddhism. 
The word huddha, “ awakened, enlightened,” was originally 
a name of honour given to all sages, including the ortho- 
dox. This is shown by the use both of the root hvdh in 
the Brahmanas, and of the wmrd huddha itself in even the 
most recent of the Vedantic writings. The technical 
application of the word is as much the secondary one as it 
is in the case also of another word of the kind, iramma, 
which was in later times appropriated by the Buddhists 
as peculiarly their own. Here not merely the correspond- 
ing use of the root iram, but also the word iramana itself, 
w a title of honour^ may be pointed out in several passages 
ui the Brahmanas. Though Megasthenes, in a passage 
quoted by Strabo, draws a distinct line between two sects 


of pKilosophers, the B pa^^fiaveis and the JSap/idvcu, yet we 

hardly be justified in identifying the latter with 
the Biiddhist mendicants, at least, not exclusively ; for he 
expressly mentions the v\6j3ioi — i.e., the Brahmacharins 
and Vdnaprasthas, the first and third of the stages into 
which a Brahman’s life is distributed— as forming part of 
the ^appbdvai. The distinction between the two sects pro- 
bably consisted in this, that the B pa-)(iJMve<t were the “ phil- 
osophers” by birth, also those who uved as householders 
(Grihasthas) ; the Sappudvat, on the contrary, those who 
gave themselves up to special mortifications, and who 
^^S^t belong also to other castes. The IIpdp.vat, men- 
tioned by Strabo in another passage (see Lassen, 1 . AK. 

^36), whom, following the accounts of Alexander’s time, 
he describes as accomplished polemical dialecticians, in 

contradistinction to the BpajQidve'i, whom he represents 

chieHy devoted to physiology and astronomy, appear 
cither to be identical with the Sappdvai — a supposition 
favoured by the fact that precisely the same things are 
asserted of both — or else, with Lassen, they may be re- 
garded as Pramanas, i.e., founding their belief on pramdiui, 
logical proof, instead of revelation. As, however, the word 
is not known in the writings of that period, we should in 
this Case hardly be justified in accepting Strabo’s report 
^ fi'Ue of Alexander’s time, but only of a later 


Philosophical systems are not to be spoken of in connec- 
tion with this period ; only isolated views and speculations 
are to be met with in those portions of the Brahmanas 
here concerned, viz., the so-called Upanishads {upanishad, 
a session, a lecture). Although there prevails in these a 
yeiy iiiarkcd tendency to systematise and subdivide, the 
mvestirrations still move within a verv narrow and limited 
range. Considerable progress towards systematising and 
expansion is visible in the Upanishads found in the Aran- 
yaka,s,* writings supplementary to the Brahmanas, and 
specially designed for the vXo^ioi ; and still greater pro- 
gress in those Upanishads which stand by themselves, i.e., 

Tile Aranyaka occurs first pas.sages in coiitracli.stinction to 
in the Vftruika to Pan. iv. 2. 129 [see ‘ Veda'), iiL IIO, 309 ; and in the 
on this, / ^ tlieQ in Manu, Atharvopanishads (see I St., ii. 179). 

iv. 123 ; Yiijnavalkya, i. 145 (in both 



those which, although perhaps originally annexed to a 
Brahmana or an Aranyaka of one of the three older Vedas, 
have come down to us at the same time — or, it may be, 
have come down to us only — in an Atharvan recension. 
Finally, those U])anishads which are directly attached to 
the Atliarva-Veda are complete vehicles of developed 
philosophical systems ; they are to some extent sectarian 
in their contents, in which respect they reach down to the 
time of the Puranas. That, however, the fundamental 
works now extant of the philosophical systems, viz., their 
Siitras, were composed much later than has hitherto been 
supposed, is conclusively proved by the following consider- 
ations. In the first place, the names of their authors are 
either not mentioned at all in the most modern Brahmanas 
and Aranyakas, or, if they are, it is under a different form 
and in other relations — in such a way, however, that their 
later acceptation is already foreshadowed and exhibited in 
the germ. Secondly, the names of the sages mentioned 
in the more ancient of them are only in part identical with 
those mentioned in the latest liturgical Siitras. And, 
thirdly, in all of them the Veda is ex2)ressly presupposed 
as a whole, and direct reference is also made to those 
Upanishads which we are warranted in recognising as the 
latest real Upanishads ; nay, even to such as are only found 
attached to the Atharvan. The style, too, the enigmatical 
conciseness, the mass of technical terms — although these 
are not yet endowed with an algebraic force — imply a long 
previous period of special study to account for suck pre- 
cision and perfection. The philosophical Sutras, as 
well as the grammatical Siitra, should therefore be con- 
sidered as dating from the beginning of the next period, 
within , which both are recognised as of predominant 

In closing this survey of Vedic literature, I have lastly 
to call attention to two other branches of science, which, 
though they do not appear to have attained in this period 
to the possession of a literature — at least, not one of which 
direct relics and records have reached us — must yet have 
enjoyed considerable cultivation — I mean Astronomy and 
Medicine. Both received their fii-st impulse from the 
exigencies of religious worship. Astronomical obseiwa- 
tions — though at first, of course, these were only of the. 


rudest description — ^were necessarily required for the regu- 
lation of the solemn sacrifices ; in the first place, of those 
offered in the morning and evening, then of those at the 
new and full moon, and finally of those at the commence- 
ment of each of the three seasons. Anatomical observa- 
tions, again, were certain to be brought about by the dis- 
section of the victim at the sacrifice, and the dedication of 
its different parts to different deities. The Indo-Germanic 
mind, too, being so peculiarly susceptible to the influences 
of nature, and nature in India more than anywhere else 
inviting observation, particular attention could not fail to 
be early devoted to it. Thus we find in the later portions 
of the Vajasaneyi-Samhita and in the Chhandogyopani- 
shad express mention made of “ observers of the stars ” 
and “the science of astronomy;” and, in particular, the 
knowledge of the twenty-seven (twenty-eight) lunar man- 
sions was early diffused. They are enumerated singly in 
the Taittin'ya-Sarnhita, and the order in which they there 
occur is one that must necessarily* have been established 
somewhere between 1472 and 536 b.g. Strabo, in the 
above-mentioned passage, expressly assigns aarpovofiia as 
a favourite occupation of the Bpa^ave^. Nevertheless, 
they had not yet made great progress at this period ; their 
observations were chiefly confined to the course of the 
moon, to the solstice, to a few fixed stars, and more par- 
ticularly to astrology. 

As regards Medicine, we find, especially in the Sam- 
hita of the Atharvan, a number of* songs addressed to 
illnesses and healing herbs, from which, however, there is 
not much to be gathered. Animal anatomy was evidently 
thoroughly understood, as each separate part had its own 
distinctive name. Alexander’s companions, too, extol 
the Indian physicians, especially for their treatment of 

* See 1 . SL, ii. 240, note. [The seems to be that contained in the 
correct numbers are rather 2780- Jyotisha, we obtain the years 1820* 
i820B.c.,aee/.;8i.,x. 234-236(1866); 860, [>, 236, ff. See further 

and for the bhara^i series, which the remarks in note 2 above.] 


From this preliminary survey of Vedic literature we 
now pass to the details. Adhering strictly to the Indian 
classification, we shall consider each of tlie four Vedas 
by itself, and deal with the writings belonging to them 
in tlicir proper order, in connection with each Veda sepa- 

And first of the Rigveda. The Rigveda- Samliita pre- 
sents a twofold subdivision — tlie one purely external, 
having regard merely to the compass of the work, and 
evidently the more recent; the other more ancient, and 
based on internal grounds. The former distribution is 
that into eight ashtakas (eighths), nearly equal in length, 
each of which is again subdivided into as many adhydyas 
(lectures), and each of these again into about 33 (2006 in 
all) vargas (sections), usually consisting of five verses.^® 
The latter is that into ten mandalas (circles), 85 anuvdJcas 
(chapters), loiysdktas (hymns), and io,s 8 orichas (verses) ; 
it rests on the variety of authors to whom the hymns are 
ascribed. Thus the first and tenth mandalas contain 
Bongs by Rishis of different families ; the second mandalas 
on the contrary {asht. ii. 71-113), contains songs belong- 
ing to Gritsamada; the third {asht. ii. 114-119, iii. 1-56) 
belongs to Vi^varnitra; the fourth {asht. iii. 57-1 14J to 
Vamadeva; the fifth {asht. iii. 1 15-122, iv. 1-79) to Atri; 
the sixth {asht. iv. 80-140, v. 1-14) to Bharadvaja; the 
seventh {asht. v. 15-118) to Vasishtha; the eighth {ash^. 
V. 1 1 9- 1 29, vi. I -81) to Kanva; and the ninth {asht. vi. 
82-124, vii, 1-7 1 ) to Aiigiras.^^ By the names of these 
Rishis we must understand not merely the individuals, but 
also their families. The hymns in each separate maijdala 
are arranged in the order of the deities addressed.^®*" Those 
addressed to Agni occupy the first place, next come those 

® For particulars see /. St.y iii. \ the ninth 7 an, 114 and 

255 1 Mtiller, Anc, S, Lit,^ p. the tenth \z an. 191s. 

rni £ Delbriick, in liis review of 8ie~ 

The first raandala contains 24 btnzig Lieder des Rigveda (cf. note 
anuvdka^ find igi silktas ; the second 32) in the Jtnaer Liter aiurztilung 
4 an. 43 the third 5 an. 62 a.; the (1875, p. 867), points out that in 
wurth 5 5 ^ ^>1 t;he fifth 6 an, books 2-7 the hymns to Agni and 

sixth 6 an, the Indra are arranged in a descending 

seventh 6 an, 104 s.; the eighth 10 gradation as regards the number of 
92 9. (besides ii vdlakkilya- verses. 


to Indra, and then those to other gods. This, at le^t, is 
the order in the first eight mandalas. The ninth is ad- 
dressed solely to Soma, and stands in the closest connec- 
tion with the Sama-Samhita, one-third of which is bor- 
rowed from it ; whereas the tenth mandMa stands in a 
very special relation to the Atharva-Samhitd. The earliest 
mention of this order of the maindcLlas occurs in the 
Aitareya-Aranyaka, and in the two Grihy a- Siitr as of 
A^valayana and ^aukhayana. The Prati^akhyas and 
Ydska recognise no other division, and therefore give to 
the Rik-Samhita the name of daiatayyas, i.e., the songs 
“ in ten divisions,” a name also occurring in the Sama- 
Sdtras. The’ Anukrainani of Katyayana, on the contrary, 
follows the division into ash^akas and adhydyas. The 
name sukta, as denoting hymn, appears for the first time in 
the second part of the Brahmana of the White Yajus; the 
Rig-Brahmanas do not seem to be acq^nainted with it,^ but 
we find it in the Aitareya-Aranyaka, &c. The extant re- 
cension of the Rik-Samhita is that of the Sakalas, and 
belongs specially, it would seem, to that branch of this 
school which bears the name of the Saidiriyas. Of 
another recension, that of the Vashkalas, we have but 
occasional notices, but the difference between the two does 
not seem to have been considerable. One main distinc- 
tion, at all events, is that its eighth mandala contains 
eight additional hymns, making loo in all, and that, con- 
sequently, its sixth ashtaka consists of 132 hymns.*^ The 
name of the Sakalas is evidently related to Sakalya, a 
sage often mentioned in the Brahmanas and Sutras, who is 

Tliis is a mistake. They 
know the word not only in the 
abf)ve, but also in a technical sense, 
viz., us a dfsignutiou of one of the 
six parts of the kis^ra (‘cauou*), 
tnoie especially of the main sub- 
stance of it ; when thus applied, 
s/ikla appears in a collective mean- 
ing, comprising several sdktds, Cf- 
6itnkh. Bnlhm., xiv. l. 

I am at present unable to corro- 
borate this stiitement in detail. I 
can only show, from Siuuaka’s 
AnuvdkiCnukramanl, that the recen- 
sion of the Vdshkalas had eight 
hvmns more than that of the Sdka- 
laM, but not that these eight hymns 

formed part of the eight i numdala. 
When I wrote the above I was pro- 
bably thinking of the Vdlakhilyas, 
whose number is given by Sdyana, 
in his commentary on the Ait. llr., 
as eight (of, Roth, Zuv Lilt, und 
Gcsch. diS Weda, p. 35 ; llaug on 
Ait. Br., 6. 24, p. 416J, whereas the 
editions of Muller and Aufrecht 
have eleven. But as to whether 
these eight or eleven Vdlakhilyas 
belong specially to the VAshkahw, I 
cannot at present produce any direct 
evidence. On other differences of 
the Vdshkala school, &c., see Adalb, 
Kuhn, in I. St.^ i. lo8, ff. 



stated by Yaska 22 to be the author of the Padapatha* 
of the Rik-Samhita.t According to^ the accounts in the 
]h-i'ihniana of the White Yajus (tlie Satapatha-Brahmana), 
a Si'ikalya, surnamed Vidagdlia (the cunning?), lived con- 
teniporaneously with Yajnavalkya as a teacher at the 
court of Janaka, King of Videha, and that as tlic declared 
adversary and rival of Yajnavalkya. He was vanquished 
and cursed by the latter, his head dropped off, and his 
boiuss were stolen by robbers. — Varkali also (a local form of 
Vdshkali) is the name of one of tlie teachers mentioned in 
the second part of the Satapatha-Braliniana.22 

'J'he ^akalas appear in tradition as intimately connected 
with the ^unakas, and to ^aunaka in particular a number 
of writings are attributed,^ which he is said to have com- 
posed with a view to secure the preservation of the text 
(j'igvedaguptaye) , as, for instance, an Anukramani ol the 
Rishis, of the metres, of the deities, of the anuvAhas, of the 
hymns, an arrangement (? Vidhana) of the verses and their 
constituent parts, 2* the above-mentioned Brihaddevata, 

^ Or rather Durga, in his comm, to the Rik, occurs in a memorial 
on Nir. iv. 4; see liotli, i>. 39, in- verse, yajnagaUui, quoted in the 

troductiou, p. Ixviii. Ait. Brdhm., iii. 43 

* This is the dosignution of that 277).— For the name Sai6iriya I can 
peculiar method of recit ing the Veda only cite the ^ivavara section added 
in which each word of the text at the close of the Asvalayana- 
stands by itself, unmodified by the Srauta-Sdtra, in which the Saisiris 
euphonic changes it has to undergo are mentioned several times, partly 
when connected with tlie preceding by themselves, partly^ beside and in 
and following words. [See above, p,23,] association with the Suftgus.] 

t His name seems to point to ” This form of name, which might 
the north-west (?). The scholiast on be traced to vrikala, occurs also in 
Pdnini [iy. 2. 117], at least, proba- the Sdnkhdyana Aranyaka, viii. 2 : 
bly following the Malidbhiishya, cites aiUi^oJtasra'rfi VdTkalino hfiKotiT 
Biikala in connection wuth the Bdhi- ahar abhiiampddaya/nti^” tbonghthe 
kaa ; see also Burnouf, I nirodticlion parallel passage in the Aitar. Arany., 
ilVHUt, du BuddL, p. 620, flF. The iii. 8, otherwise similarly worded, 
passiige in the suti^a of P;iniai, iv. 3. reads instead of ** VdrkalinOy* “ 
128, has no local reference [on the (i,€,y vai) Arkalino / ” 
data from the Mahdbhd-shya bearing t By Sbadguru^ishya, in the in- 
on this point, see /. St,, xiii. 366, troduction to his commentary on 
372, 409, 428, 445]. On the other the Rig-Anukramani of Kiltydyana. 
hand, we find ^ikyas also in the Rather two Vidhdna texts (see 

Kosala country in Kapilavastu, of below), the one of which has for its 
whom, however, as of the Sdkjt- object the application of particular 
yaning in the Yajus, we do not ex- ricka^, the other probably that of 
actly know what to make (see be- particular pddas, to superstitious 
loAv). [The earliest mention of the purposes, after the manner of the 
Word Sdkala, in immediate reference Sdmavidhdna-Brdhmana. 




the Prdti^dkhya of the Rik, a Smdrta-Siitra,* and also a 
Kalpa-Siitra referring specially to the Aitareyaka, which, 
however, he destroyed after one had been composed by his 
pupil, ^valayana. It is not perhaps, on the face of it, 
impossible that all these writings might be the work of 
one individual ^aunaka; still they probably, nay, in part 
certainly, belong only to the school which bears his name. 
But, in addition to this, we find that the second mandala 
of the Sainhitd itself is attributed to him ; and that, on the 
other hand, he is identified with the l^aunaka at whose 
sacrificial feast Sauti, the sou of Vai^ampayana, is said 
to have repeated the Maha-Bharata, recited by the latter 
on an earlier occasion to Janamejaya (the second), together 
with the Harivan^a. The former of these assertions must, 
of course, only be understood in the sense that the family 
of the Sunakas both belonged to the old Rishi families 
of the Rik, and continued still later to hold one of the 
foremost places in the learned world of the Brahmans. 
Against the second statement, on the contrary, no direct 
objection can be urged ; and it it at least not impossible 
that the teacher of Aivalayana and the sacrificer in the 
Naimishaf forest are identical. — In the Brahmana of the 
White Yajus we have, further, two distinct l^aunakas men- 
tioned ; the one, Indrota, as sacrificial priest of the prince 
who, in the Maha-Blidrata, appears as the first Janame- 
jaya (Parikshita, so also in M.-Bh. xii. 5595, ff.), the other, 
Svaiddyana, as Audichya, dv/elling in the north. 

As author of the Krama-])atba of the Rik-Samhita a 
Pafichala Babhravya^s is mentioned. Thus we see that to 
the Kuru-Panchulas and the Kosala-Videhas (to whom Sa- 
kalya belongs) appertains the chief merit of having fixed and 
arranged the text of the Rik, as well as that of the Yajus ; 

On the Gfibya of Saunaka, see quoted .as an authority in the text 
Steuzler, I. St., i. 243. of the Rik-Prdtiiidkhya itself, viz., 

t The sacrifice conducted by this ii. 12, 44, and that beside tlie 
Saunaka in the Naimisha forest Prdcliyas (people of the east), the 
would, in any case, have to be die- above conclusions still hold good, 
tinguished from the great sacrificial See Regnier on Rik-Pr., ii. 12 p 

festival of the Naimishiyas, so often 113. Compare also ddflkh. 6r,, ’xii. 
mentioned in the Brdhmanas. 13. 6 {panchdlapadavrittih), ’ and 

ill the Rik-PrdU xi. 33, merely Sanihitopiiuishad-Bnihm.ana,’ § 2 

Bdbhravya ; only in Uata’s scholium (mrvalra Prdchya PdncMlishu muk- 
is he designated as a P.iSichdla. As, uitp,, gurvuli'd ’niuktuin), 
however^ the Pahclidlatj are twice 



and this was probably accomplished, in tlie case of both 
Vedas, during the most fiourishiug period of these tribes. 

For the origin of tlie songs themselves we must go back, 
as 1 have already repeatedly stated, to a far earlier period. 
This is most clearly shown by the mythological and geo- 
graphical data contained in them. 

The former, the mythological relations, represented in 
the older hymns of the Rik, in part carry us back to the 
primitive Indo-Germanic time. They contain relics of 
the childlike and naive conceptions then prevailing, such 
as may also be traced among the Teutons and Greeks. 
So, for instance, the idea of the change of the departed 
spirit into air, which is conducted by the winged wind, as 
by a faithful dog, to its place of destination, as is shown 
by the identity of Sarameya and 'JEp/^eia?,* of Gabala and 
Kep^epo<i.1[ Further, the idea of the celestial sea, Varuna, 
Ovpav6<t, encompassing the world; of the Father -Heaven, 
Dyausbpitar, Zev<i, Diespiter ; of the Mother - Earth, 
ArjpuqTrjp] of the waters of the sky as shining nymphs; 
of the sun’s rays as cows at pasture ; of the dark cloud-god 
as the robber who carries off these maidens and cows ; and 
of the mighty god who wields the lightning and thunder- 
bolt, and who chastises and strikes down the ravisher; 
and other such notions.J Only the faintest outlines ol 
this comparative mythology are as yet discernible ; it will 
unquestionably, however, by degrees claim and obtain, in 
relation to classical mythology, a position exactly analo- 
gous: to that which has already, in fact, been secured by 
comparative Tiulo-Germanic grammar in relation to classi- 
cal grammar. The ground on which that mythology has 
hitherto stood trembles beneath it, and the new light 
about to be shed upon it we owe to the hymns of the Rig- 
veda, which enable us to glance, as it were, into the work- 
shop whence it originally proceeded.! 

* See Kuhn, in Haupt’s Deutsche § See Z, D, M. 6'., v. ii2. [Since 
Zeitschrift, vi. 125, fF. 1 wrote (he above, comparative my- 

t 297. i\\ [and, still car- tbology has been enriched with much 

lier, Max Miilh'i* ; see 1 lis Chl}*s valuable matter, but much also that 
from a German Workshop, ii. 182]. is crude and fanciful has been ad- 
See Kuhn, Lc., and repeatedly vanced, Deserviui^ of special men- 
in the Zeitschrift fur vcrgldchendc tion,be8ide3variouspaperaby Adalb, 
Sprachforscliung, edited by him Kuhn in his Zeitschrift, are two 
jointly with Aufrecht (vol. i., 1851). papers by the same author, entitled, 



Again, secondly, the hymns of the Rik contain sufficient 
evidence of their antiquity in the invaluable information 
which they furnish regarding the origin and gradual de- 
velopment of two cycles of epic legend, the Persian and 
the Indian. In both of these the simple allegories of 
natural phenomena were afterwards arrayed in an historic 
garb. In the songs of the Rik we find a description, 
embellished with poetical colours, of the celestial contest 
between light and darkness, which are depicted either 
quite simply and naturally, or else in symbolical guise as 
divine beings. In the Persian Veda, the Avesta, on the 
other hand, “the contest* descends from heaven to 
earth, from the province of natural phenomena into the 
moral sphere. The champion is a sou, born to his father, 
and given as a saviour to earth, as a reward for the pious 
e.xercise of the Soma worship. The dragon slain by him 
is a creation of the Power of Evil, armed with demoniacal 
might, for the' destruction of purity in the woild. Lastly, 
the Persian epic enters upon the ground of history. The 
battle is fought in the Aryan land; the serpent, Aji 
Dahaka in Zend, Ahi [Dasaka] in the Veda, is trans- 
formed into Zohak the tyrant on the throne of Iran ; and 
the blessings achieved for the oppressed -people by the 
warlike Ferdddn — Traitana in the Veda, Thra 4 taon 6 in 
Zend — are freedom and contentment in life on the pater- 
nal soil.” Persian legend traversed these phases in the 
course of perhaps 2000 years, passing from the domain 
of nature into that of the epic, and thence into the field of 
history. A succession of phases, corresponding to those 
of Fereduii, may be traced also in the case of Jemshid 
(Yama, Yima) ; a similar series in the case of Kaikavus 
(Kavya U^anas, Kava U^) ; and probably also in the case 
of Kai Khosrii (Susravas, Hu^ravanh). Indian legend in 
its developiu'Mit is the counterpart of the Persian myth. 
Even in the time of the Yajurveda the natural significance 

Die Herahkunft des Feuer^ und dee 
OoUertranks (1859), and Vehcr £nt~ 
wicklungxstufen der Mi/thenbildung 
(1874) : further, Max Miiiler’s 
* Comparative Mythology* in the 
Oxford E^eaye (1856), reprinted in 
t]ie Chipe^ vol. ii, ; M. Brdal, Her* 

cule el Cacus (1863 ) ; Cox. Mythology 
of the Aryan Natione (1870, 2 vols.); 
A, do Gubernatis, Zoological My tho- 

^^(1872, 2 volg,); and MUologia 
Vedica (1874).] 

* See Roth, in Z, D. M, Q,. ii. 
216, ff. 


3 ? 

of the myth had become entirely obliterated. Indra is 
there but the quarrelsome and jealous god, who subdues 
the unwieldy giant by low cunning ; and in the Indian 
epic the myth either still retains the same form, or else 
Indra is represented by a human hero, Arjuna, an incarna- 
tion of himself, ^vlio makes short work of the giant, and 
the kings who pass for the incarnations of the latter. The 
principal figures of the Maha-Bharata and Kamayana fall 
away like the kings of Firdiisf, and there remain for his- 
tory only those general events in the story of the people 
to which the ancient myths about the gods have been 
applied. The personages fade into the background, and in 
this representation are only recognisable as poetic crea- 

Thirdly, the songs of the Rik unfold to us particulars 
as to the time, place, and conditions of their origin and 
growth. In the more ancient of them the Indian people 
appear to us settled on the banks of the Indus, divided 
into a number of small tribes, in a state of mutual hos- 
tility, leading a patriarchal life as husbandmen and 
nomads ; living separately or in small commui'iities, and 
represented by their kings, in the eyes of each other by the 
wars they wage, and in presence of the gods by the com- 
mon sacrifices they perform. Each father of a family acts 
as priest in his own house, himself kindling the sacred 
fire, performing the domestic ceremonies, and offering up 
praise and prayer to the gods. Only for the great com- 
mon sacrifices — a sort of tribc-festivais, celebrated by the 
kin g — are special priests appointed, Avho distinguish them- 
selves by their comprehensive knowledge of the requisite 
rites and by their learning, and amongst whom a sort of 
rivalry is gradually developed, according as one tribe or 
another is considered to have more or less prospered by 
its sacrifices. E.s])ecially prominent here is the enmity 
between the families of Vasishtha and Visvamitra, which 
nms through all Vedic antiquity, continues to play an 
important part in the epic, and is kept up even to the 
latest times ; so that, for example, a coinmentator of the 
Veda who claims to be descended from Va.^ishtha leaves 
passages unexpounded in which the latter is stated to have 
had a curse imprecated upon him. This implacable hatred 
owes its origin to the trifling circumstance of Vasishtha 



VEDIC LI tee a Tt/EE. 

We find songs of 

having once been appointed chief sacrificial priest instead 
of Vi^vamitra by one of the petty kings of these early 
times. —The influence of these royal priests does not, how- 
ever, at this early period, extend beyond the sacrifice ; 
there are no castes as yet ; the people is still one united 
whole, and bears but one name, that of viSas, settlers. 
The prince, who was probably elected, is called Vi^pati, a 
title still preserved in Lithuanian. The free position held 
by women at this time is remarkable, 
the most exquisite kind attributed to poetesses and queens, 
among whom the daughter of Atri appears in the foremost 
rank. As regards love, its tender, ideal element is not 
very conspicuous ; it rather bears throughout the stamp of 
an undisguised natural sensuality. Marriage is, however, 
held sacred; husband and wife are both rulers of the 
house (dampat'C), and approach the gods in united prayer. 
The religious sense expresses itself in the recognition of 
man’s dependence on natural phenomena, and the beings 
supposed to rule over them ; but it is at the same time 
claimed that these latter are, in their turn, dependent 
upon human aid, and thus a sort of equilibrium is estab- 
lished. The religious notion of sin is consequently want- 
ing altogether, and submissive gratitude to the gods is as 
yet quite foreign^ to the Indian. ‘ Give me, and I will 
render to thee,’ he says,^^ claiming therewith a right on 
his part to divine help, which is an exchange, no grace. 
In this free strength, this vigorous self-consciousness, a 
very different, and a far more manly and noble, picture of 
the Indian is presented to us than that to which we are 
accustomed from later times. I have already endeavouind 
above to show how this state of things became gradually 
altered, how the fresh energy was broken, and by degrees 
disappeared, through the dispersion over Hindustan, and 

But what it 

was that led to the emigration of the people in such masses 
from the Indus across the Sarasvatf towards the Ganges, 

the enervating influence of the new climate. 

‘Quite foreign’ is nather too (1851). There are differeiii phases 
strong an exiu’cssion. See lloUi’s to be distinguished, 
pnper, Die hdeksten Oottcr dcr ari~ ^ Vdj. S., iii. 50; or, “Kill him, 
schen Volker, iu Z. D, M. (?., vi. 72 then will I sacrifice to thee,” Taitt, 

S., vi. 4, 5. 6. 



what was its principal cause, is still uncertain. Was it 
the pressure brought about by the arrival of new settlers 1 
Was it excess of population ? Or was it only the longing 
for the beautiful tracts of Hindustan? Or perhaps all 
these causes combined ? According to a legend preserved 
in the Brahmana of tlie White Yajus, the priests were in 
a great measure the cause of this movement, by urging 
it upon the kings, even against their will [/. Si., i. 178]. 
The connection with the ancestral home on the Indus 
remained, of course, at first a very close one ; later on, 
however, when the new Brahmanical organisation was 
completely consolidated in Hindustan, a strong element of 
bitterness was infused into it, since the Brahmans looked 
upon their old kinsmen who had remained true to the cus- 
toms of their forefathers as apostates and unbelievers. 

But while the origin of the songs of the Rik dates from 
this primitive time, the redaction of the Rik-Samhita only 
took place, as we observed, at a period when the Brah- 
manical hierarchy was fully developed, and when the 
Kosala-Videhas and Kuru-Panchalas.* who are to be re- 
garded as having been specially instrumental in effect- 
ing it, were in their prime. It is also certain that not 
a few of the songs were composed either at the time of 
tlie emigration into Hindustan, or at the time of the 
compilation itself. Such songs are to be found in the last 
book especially, a comparatively large portion of which, ae 
I have already remarked, recuis in tlie Atliarvaveda-Sam- 
hita. It is for the critic to determine approximately in 
the case of each individual song, having regard to its con- 

* Jfa^^a^a x. 98 is a dialogue 
between Devdpi and ^aiptanu, the 
two ‘ Kauravyaxi' as Ydska calls 
them. In the Mah:i-Bhdraiu Sani- 
tanii is the namf> of tlio fa'ht r of 
Bhishma an<l Viciiitravirya, by 
whose two wives, Aml>ikd and Am- 
bdiik^, Vydsa became the father of 
phritardslitni and IMndu. Tins 
Sairitanu is, therefore, the grand- 
father of these latter, or the great- 
grandfather of the Kauravas anti 
Pd^daras, the belligerents in the 
ttahd-Bhdrata. We should thus 
bave to suppose that the feud de- 

9 ^ 

ment of 

« ^ 



scribed in this epic had been fought 
out long before the iinal arrange- 

tbe Rik-Saiphitd ! It is, 

questionable wliether the 
of the Malnl-Bh^ata is 


with the Sarptanu men- 
tioned in the Rik ; or, even if we 
take this for granted, whether he 
may not merely have been associated 
with the epic legend in majoi'em rei 
gloriam, Devdpi, at least, who, 
according to Ydska, is his brother, 
has in the Rik a different father 
from the one given in the epic. See 
L Sty i. 203. 



tents, its ideas, its language, and the traditions connected 
with it, to what period it ought possibly to be ascribed. 
But as yet this task is only set ; its solution has not yet 
even begun.^ 

The deities to whom the son^ are for the most part 
addressed are the following : — First, Agni, the god of fire. 
The songs dedicated to him are the most numerous of aU 
— a fact sufficiently indicative of the character and import 
of these sacrificial hymns. He is the messenger from men 
to the gods, the mediator between them, who with his far- 
shining flame summons the gods to the sacrifice, however 
distant they may be. He is for the rest adored essentially 
as earthly sacrificial fire, and not as an elemental force. 
The latter is rather pre-eminently the attribute of the god 
to whom, next to Agni, the greatest number of songs is 
'dedicated, viz., Indra. Indra is the mighty lord of the 
thunderbolt, with which he rends asunder the dark clouds, 
so that the lieavenly rays and waters may descend to bless 
and fertilise the earth. A great number of the hymns, 
and amongst them some of the most beautiful, are devoted 
to the battle that is fought because the malicious demon 
will not give up his booty; to the description of the 
thunderstorm generally, which, with its flashing light- 
nings, its rolling thunders, and its furious blasts, made a 
tremendous impression upon the simple mind of the 
people. The break of day, too, is greeted ; the dawns are 
praised as bright, beautiful maidens ; and deep reverence 
is paid to the flaming orb of the mighty sun, as he steps 
forth vanquishing the darkness of night, and dissipating it 
to all the quarters of the heavens. The brilliant sun-god 
is besought for light and warmth, that seeds and flocks 
may thrive in gla(lsome prosperity. 

Besides the throe principal gods, Agni, Indra, and Siirya, 
we meet with a great inimber of other divine personages, 
prominent amongst whom are the Maruts, or winds, the 
feithfnl comrades of Indra in his battle ; and Kudra, the 
howling, terrible god, who rules the furious tempest. It 
is not, however, my ])resent task to discuss the whole 
of the Vedic Olympus ; I had only to sketch generally 

Sec now Pertsch, Upahkha^ p. traWatt, 1875, p. 522); L St,y ix. 
57 (1854; compare Xi 7 erariWt€« e'en- 299, xiii. 279, 280; /. Str.^ i. 19. 



the groundwork and the outlines of this ancient edifice. 2* 
Besides the powers of nature, we find, as development pro- 
gi-esses, personifications also of spiritual conceptions, of 
ethical import ; but the adoration of these, as compared 
with the former, is of later origin. 

I have already discussed the precautions taken to secure 
the text of the Rik-Samhita, i.e., the question of its authen- 
ticity, and I have likewise alluded to the aids to its ex- 
planation furnished by the remaining Vedic literature. 
These latter reduce themselves chiefly to the Nigliantus, 
and the Nirukta of Yaska.®® Both works, in their turn, 
found their commentators in course of time. For the 
Nighantus, we have the commentary of Devarajayajvan, 
who belongs to about the fifteenth or sixteenth century. 
In the introduction he enlarges upon the history of their 
study, from which they appear to have found only one 
other complete commentator since Yaska, viz., Skanda- 
svamin. For Yaska’s Nirukta a commentary has been 
handed down to us dating from about the thirteenth cen- 
tury, that of Durga. Both works, moreover, the Nighan- 
tus as well as the Nirukta, exist in two different recen- 
sions. ' These do not materially differ from one anotlier, 
and chiefly in respect of arrangement only ; but the very 
fact of their existence leads us to suppose that these works 
were originally transmitted orally rather than in writing. 
A commentary, properly so callc(l,on the Rik-Samhita, h: ; 
come down to us, but it dates only from the fourteenth 
century, that of Sayanacharya.* “ From the long series of 

** Muir’s Original Sanskrit Ttxts, 
▼ol. T. (1870), is the best source of 
information for Vedic inyihology. 
This name appears both in the 
Vandas in tlie last book of the Satap. 
Br., and in the Kanddnukraiua of 
the Atreyi school, wlicre he is cafled 
Paifigi, and described as the pupil 
of yai 4 ampdyana, and teacher of 
Tittiri. From l*dn., ii. 4, 63, it 
follows that Pdnini was cognisant of 
the name Ydska, for lie there teaclies 
the plural Yas/:ds for the patronymic 
.Ydikd, Compare on this the pravara 
section in the Asvaldyana-^rauta- 
S^tra. The Yaskd Gairikshitdk are 
entioned in the Kd^haka, which 

again is quoted by Pdnini ; see 
L iii. 475. A direct reference 
to Ydska is made in the Rik-PnlU 
and in the Hrihaddevatii ; sec also 
/. Si.y viii. 96, 245, 246. 

* The circumstance that com- 
mentaries on almost all branches of 
the Vedas, and on various other impor- 
tant and extensive works as well, 
are ascribed to Sdyana and his 
brother Mddhava, is to be explained 
by the practice prevailing in India 
by which works composed by order 
of some distinguished person bear 
his name as the author. So in the 
present day the Pandits work for the 
person who pays them, and leave 



centuries* between Ydska and Sayana but scanty remains 
of an exegetic literature connected with the Rik- Samhita 
are left to us, or, at any rate, have as yet been discovered. 
Samkara and the Vedantic school turned their attention 
chiefly to the Upanishads. Nevertheless, a gloss upon a 
portion at least of the Rik-Sainhita was drawn up by 
A.nandatirtha, a pupil of Samkara, of which there is an 
exposition by Jayatirtha, comprising the second and third 
adhyd/yas of the first ashfahi, in the Library of the India 
House in London.” Sayana himself, in addition to Durga’s 
commentary on the Nirukti, only quotes Bhatta Bhaskara 
Mi^ra and Bharatasvamin as expositors of the Vedas.® 
The former wrote a commentary upon the Taitt. Yajus, 
not the Rik-Samhita, in which he refers to Ka4akritsna, 
Ekaclnirni, and Yaska as his predecessors in the work. 
For Bharatasvamin we have no further data than that his 
name is also cited by Devaraja (on the Nigliantus), who 
further mentions Bhatta Bhaskara Mi^ra, Mailhavadeva, 
Bhavasvamin, Guhadeva, Srinivasa, and Uvatta. The 
latter, otherwise called tlata, wrote a commentary on the 

the fruit of their labour to him as the name Vidyinmyasvdmin. See 
hia property. SIddhava, and prob- my remarks to the contrary in Lite- 
ably also Sdya^a, were ministers at rarigches Centralblatt (iSj 3), p. 1421. 
the court of King Bukka at Vijaya- Burnell prefers the form Vidystna- 
nagara, and took advantage of their gara to Vijayanapira. Cowell, in 
position to give a fresh impulse to his note on Colebr., Misc. Ees., i. 
the study of the Veda. The writings 235, has Vidyd® and Vijaya® side by 
attributed to them point, by the very side.] 

difference of their contents and style, * See Roth, Zur Litt., p. 22. 

to a variety of autliorsliip. [Accord- ** To these have to be added 

ing to A. C. Burnell, in the preface Skandasvdmin (see p. 41) and Ka- 
to his edition of the Vafl^a-Bnih- pardin (see below) ; and as anterior 
mana, p. viii., ff. (1873), the two to Sdyana we must i)robably regard 
names denote one person only, the works of Atmdnanda, Rdvana, 
Sdyapa, he says, is “the Bboga- and Kausika (or is the latter iden- 
ndtha, or mortal body, of M.-idhava, tical with Bhatta Kausika Bhiiskara 
the soul identified with Vishnu.” Mi 5 ra ? ef. Burnell, CaUdogue oj 
Burnell is further of opinion that Vedic MSS., p. 12), and the Gd- 
the twenty-nine writings current dl't^rtharatnamdlil; Burnell, Vaw.'faJr., 
under the name of Mddhava all pro- p. xxvi., ff. ; Muller, in the preface 
cecd from Mddhava himself, nnas- to his large eilition of the Rik- 
sisted to any large extent by others, Saiphitil, vol. vi. p. xxvii., ff. Some 
and that they were composed by extracts from RAvana’s commentary 
him during a period of about thirty have been published by Pitz-lidward 
of the fifty-five years between 1331- Hall in , 7 aurnal As. Soc. Beng., 
1386 A.D., which he spent as abbot 1862, pp. 129-134. 
of the monastery at ^yingeri, under 



Samhita of the White Yajus, not the Rik-Samhita, as well 
as commentaries on the two Prati^akhyas of the Rik and 
'the White Yajus. 

As regards European researches, the Rik-Samhita, as 
well as the other Vedas, first became known to us through 
Colebrooke’s excellent paper “ On the Vedas,” in the As. 
Res:\o\. viii. (Calc. 1 805). To Rosen we are indebted for the 
first text, as given partly in his Rigvedoe S2)ecimen (London, 
1830), partly in the edition of the first ash taka, with Latin 
translation, which only appeared after the early deatli of 
the lamented author (ibid. 1838). Since then, some other 
smaller portions of the text of the Rik-Samhita have here 
and there been communicated to us in text or translation, 
especially in Roth’s already often quoted and excellent 
AMiandlungen zar Litteratwr und Geschichte des Weda 
(Stuttgart, 1 846). The entire Samhita, together with the 
commentary of Sayana, is now being published, edited by 
])r. M. Muller of Oxford, at the expense of the East India 
Company ; the first ashtaka appeared in 1 849. At the same 
time an edition of the text, with extracts from the com- 
mentary, is in course of publication in India. From Dr. 
M. Muller, too, we may expect detailed prolegomena to 
his edition, which are to treat in particular of the position 
held by the songs of the Rik in the history of civilisation. 
A French translation by Langlois comprises the entire 
Samhita (1848-1851); it is, of course, in many respects 
highly useful, although in using it great caution is neces- 
sary. An English translation by Wilson is also begun, of 
which thp first ashtaka only lias as yet appeared.®^ 

Muller’s edition of the text, Indica^ Nos, 1-4 (Calc. 1849), only 
together with the commentary of reaches to the end of the second 
Sdya^a, a complete index of words, adhydya, A fragment of the text, 
and list of '[/ratikaSj is now com- edited by Stevenson so long ago as 
plete in six vols., 1849-1875, He 1833, extends hut a little farther 
has also publislicd separately the (i, i- 35 )- — Wilson’s translation, 
text of the first mandala, in 5am- five volinnes have appeared; the 
Atid- and (l.eipzig, 185^ last, in 1866, under the editorsliip 

69), as also the whole 10 miindalas, of Cowell, brings it up to mand, 
likewise in double form (London, viii, 20. Benfcy published in liis 
®^ 73 )* complete edition Orient nnd Occident (1860-68) a 

of tile text was published, in Roman critical translation of mand, i. i- 
transliteration, by Aufrecht, in volfl. 118. Twelve liymns to the Maruts 
vi. and vii, of the IndUche Siudien are translated and furnished with a 
(1861-63). Roor’s edition of text detailed commentary in vol.i. of Max 

and commentary, in the Biblwtheca Muller’s Rigveda Sarfihitd^ tram- 



We now turn to the BrdhTnaiijas of the Bit. 

Of these, we have two, the Aitareya-Brdh/ma'oa and the 
^dnkJid/yana- (or KaushiiahiA Brdihmawi. They are closely 
connected with one another,* treat essentially of the same 
matter, not unfreqnently, however, taking opposite views 
of the same question. It is in the distribution of their 
matter that they chiefly differ. In the ^fSkhayana-Brah- 
mapa we have a perfectly arranged work, embracing on 
a definite plan the entire sacrificial procedure; but this 
does not seem to be the case in an equal degree in the 
Aitareya-Brahmana. The latter, moreover, appears to 
treat exclusively of the Soma sacrifice ; whereas in the 
former it merely occupies the principal place. In the 
^ankhayana-Brahmana we meet with nothing at all cor- 
responding to the last ten adhydyas of the Aitareya-Brah- 
mana, a gap which is only filled up by the Saiikha- 
yana-Siitra ; and for this reason, as well as from internal 
evidence, it may perhaps be assumed that the adhydyas 
in question are but a later addition to the Aitareya-Brah- 
mana. In the extant text, the Aitareya-Brahmana con- 
tains 40 adhydyas (divided into eight paflchikds, or pen- 

lated and explained (London, 1869). Rig- und Atharvaveda iiher Geogra- 
Bnt the scholar who has done most phie, GeschicMe und V^fastung de» 
by far for the right understanding often Indiens (the identification here 
of the Rik is Roth; both in the mentioned, p. 13, of the Vedic 
commentary added to his edition of Sarasvali with the Indus, was first 
Yiiska’s Nirukta (Gbttiniren, 1848- made by myself ; cf. Vdj. S. Spec., ii. 
52), and in the great St, Petersburg 80 n., 1847), and Die philosophi- 
Sanskrit Dictionary (seven voU., $chen und religiosen Anschauungen 
1853-75), edited by Bdhtlingk and des Fedo (Prag, 1875); Alfred llil- 
him. Here wo may also mention the lebrandt, Ueher dieGottin Adtft (Bres- 
following works : — Orassmann, lFt>r- lau, 1876); H. Zimmer, Parjanya 
terbueh zum Rigveda (1873, ff.) ; Piorgyn Vdla Wodan in Zeitschrift 
Dclbriick, Das altindische Verbum fur Deutsches Altertkum, New Senes, 
(1874); Renfey, Mnleitung in die vii. 164, fiF, Lastly, we have to draw 

Gramrnatik der vedischen Sjvachc attention specially to Muir’s 
(1874), and Die Quantitcitsverschie- Sanskrit Texts (5 vols., second edit., 
denheiten in den Samkitd.- und Pad'i- London, 1868, flF.), in which the 

Texten der Veden ; Bollensen, Die antiquarian information contained 
Lieder des Pardiara, in Z. D. M. O. in the Rik-SaiphiU on the different 
xxii. (1868) ; Siebemig Lieder des stages and phases of Indian life at 
Rigveda, iiberselzt von Karl Geldner that early period is clearly and com- 
und Adolf Kaegi, mit Beiirdgen von prehensively grouped : translations 
R. Roth (Tubingen, 1875)— reviewed of numerous Vedic passages and 

by Abel Bergaigne in the Revue pieces are given. o «> 

Critique, Dec, ii and 18, 1875 ; * See on this I. St., 11. 289, ff 

Alfred Ludwig, Die Nackrichten des [and ix. 377]. 




tads), while the ^aukhayana-Brahmana contains 30 ; and 
it is perhaps allowable to ret'er to them the rule in Pan ini 
V. 1. 62, which states how the name of a Biahmana is to 
be formed if it contain 30 or 40 adhydyas, — a view whicli 
would afford external waiTant also of the fact of their 
existence in this form in Panini’s time, at all events. 
Geographical or similar data, from which a conclusion 
might be drawn as to the time of their composition, are of 
very rare occurrence. Most of these, together with really 
historical statements, are to be found in tlie last books ol 
the Aitareya-Brahmana (see I. St., i. 199, ff.), from wliich 
it at any rate specially follows that their scene is the 
country of the Kuru-Panchalas and Va^a-U^inaras (see 
viii. 14). In the ^ankhayana-Brahmana mention is made 
of a great sacrifice in the Naimisha forest ; but this can 
hardly be identified with the one at which, according to 
the accounts of the Maha-Bharata, the second recitation 
of this epic took place. Another passage implies a very 
special prominence amongst the other gods of the deity 
who is afterwards known to us exclusively by the name 
of ^iva. He here receives, among other titles, those of 
Ivlina and Mahadeva, and we might perhaps venture to 
conclude from this that he was alreaily the object of a very 
special woi'ship. We are at any rate justified in inferring, 
unless the passage is an interpolation, that the Saixkha- 
yana-Brahmana ranks chronologically with the last books 
of the Sarnhita of the White Yajus, and with those por- 
tions of its Brahmana and of the Atharva-Sainhita in 
which this nomenclature is likewise found. Lastly, a 
third passage of the ^ankhayana-Brahmana implies, as 
already hinted, a special cultivation of the field of lan- 
guage in the northern parts of India. People resorted 
thither in order to become acquainted with the language, 
and on their return enjoyed a special authority on ques- 
tions connected with it. [/. St., ii. 309.] 

Both Brahmanas presuppose literary compositions of 
some extent us having preceded them. Thus mention is 
made of the dkhydnavidas,i.e., “those versed in tradition;” 
and gdthds, ahhiya/iia-ydthds, a sort of memorial vei-ses 
{kdrikds), are also frexjuently referred to and quoted. The 
names Rigveda, Samaveda, and Yajurveda, as well as trayi 
vidyd, a term used to express them collectively, repeatedly 



occur. In the ^dnkhayana-Brahmana, however, special 
regard is had to the Paingya and Kaushitaka, whose views 
are very frequently quoted side by side, that of the Kau- 
shftaka being always recognised as final. The question 
now arises what we are to understand by these expres- 
sions, whether works of the BrahmaQa order already ex- 
tant in a written form, or still handed down orally only — 
or merely the inherited tradition of individual doctrines. 
Mention of the Kaushitaka and the Pai&gya occurs in the 
Aitareya-Brahmana only in a single passage — and that 
perhaps an interpolated one — ^in the latter part of the 
work. This at all events proves, what already seemed pro- 
bable from its more methodical arrangement, that the 
Sankhayana-Brabmana is to be considered a later produc- 
tion than the Aitareya-Brahmana, since it appears to be a 
recast of tw'o sets of views of similar tenor already extant 
under distinct names, while the Aitareya-Brahmana pre- 
sents itself as a more independent effort. The name 
Paingya belongs to one of the sages mentioned in the 
Brahmana of the White Yajus and elsewhere, from whose 
family Yiiska Paiilgi* was descended, and probably also 
Pingala, the author of a treatise on metre. The Paingi 
Kalpah is expressly included by the commentator of 
Panini, probably following the Mahabhashya, among the 
ancient Kalpa-Siitras, in contradistinction to the Aimara- 
thah Kalpah, with which we shall presently become 
acquainted as an authority of the A^valayana-Siitra. 
The Paingins are, besides, frequently mentioned in early 
writings, and a Paingi-Brahmana must still have been in 
existence even in Sayana’s time, for lie repeatedly refers 
to it. The case stands similarly as regards the name 

Kaushitaka, which, is, moreover, used directly in the ma- 
jority of passages where it is quoted for the ^ankhayana- 
Brahmana itself — a fact easy of ex])lanation, as in the latter 
the view represented by the Kaushitaka is invariably 
upheld as the authoritative one, and we have in this 
Brahmana but a remoulding by ^aukhayana of the stock 
of dogma peculiarly the property of the Kaushitakins. 
Further, in its commentary, which, it may be remarked. 

• The quotations from Brdhmanas Paingi Kalpah in the Mabdbhiishya, 
in Ydska, therefore, belong in part see L xiii, 455-] 
perhaps to the Paingya (?). [On the 



interprets the work under the sole title of the “ Kaushf- 
taki-Brahmana,” passages are frequently quoted Irom a 
Maha-Kauslhtaki-Brahniana, so that we have to infer the 
existence of a still larger work of similar contents, — pro- 
bably a later handling of the same subject (?). This com- 
mentary further connects the Kauslutaki-Biahnuina Avith 
the school of the Kautliumas — a sclioul which otlierwise 
belongs only to the Samaveda : this, however, is a relation 
which has not as yet been cleared up. — The name San- 
khayjma-Brahmana interchanges occasional 1\- with the 
form Sankhyayana-Brahmana, but the former would seem 
to deserve the preference ; its earliest occurrence is pro- 
bably in the PratiSdkhya-Siitra of the Black Yajus. 

The great number of myths and legends contained in 
both these Brahmanas of the Rik invests them with a 
peculiar interest. These are not indeed introduced for 
their own sake, but merely with a view to explain the 
origin of some hymn ; but this, of course, does not detract 
liom their value. One of them, the legend of ^unah^epa, 
which is. found in the second part of the Aitareya- 
Hrahmana, is translated by Roth in the Indische Sludun, 
i. 458-464, and discussed in detail, iUd., ii. 1 12-123. 
According to him, it follows a more ancient metrical ver- 
sion. We must indeed assume generally, with regard to 
many of these legends, that they had already gained a 
rounded, independent shape in tradition before they were 
incorporated into the Brahmana, and of this w^e have fre- 
quent evidence in the distinctly archaic character of their 
language, compared with that of the rest of the text. Now 
these legends possess great value for us from two points 
of view : first, because they contain, to some extent at 
least, directly or indirectly, historical tlata, often stated in 
a plain and artless manner, but at other times disguised 
and only perceptible to the eye of criticism ; and, secondly, 
because they present connecting links with the legends 
of later times, the origin of which would otherwise have 
remained almost entirely obscure. 

On the Aitareya- Brdhmana we have a commentary by 
Sayana, and on the Kauslntaki-Brahmana one by Vina- 
yaka, a son of Madhava.*® 

33 Aitareya-Bnihma^a lias by Martin Hang, 2 vols., Bombay, 
been edited, text with translation, 1863, see /. Su, ix. 177- 380 (1865). 



To eacli of these Brdhma^as is alfeo annexed an Aran- 
yaka, or ‘ forest-portion/ that is, the portion to be studied 
in tlie forest by the sages known to us through Mega- 
sthenes as VXo^iot, and also by their disciples. This 
forest-life is evidently only a later stage of development 
in Brahmanical contemplation, and it is to it that we must 
chiefly ascribe the depth of speculation, the complete 
absorption in mystic devotion by which the Hindiis are 
so eminently distinguished. Accordingly, the writings 
directly designated as Aranyakas bear this character im- 
pressed upon them in a very marked degree ; they consist 
m great part of Upanishads only, in which, generally 
speaking, a bold and vigorous faculty of thought cannot 
fail to be recognised, however much of the bizarre they 
may at the same time contain. 

The Aitarcya-Aranyaha^'' consists of five books, each 
of which again is called Avanyaka. The second and third 
books* form a separate Upanishad ; and a still further sub- 
division here takes place, inasmuch as the four last sections 
of the second book, which are particularly consonant with 
the doctrines of the Vedanta system, pass /car’ as the 

Aitareyopanisliad^ Of these two books Mahidasa Aitareya 
is the reputed author; he is supposed to be the son of. 
Vi^ala and Itara, and from the latter his name Aitareya 
is deriyed. This name is indeed several times quoted 
in the course of the work itself as a final authority, a cir- 
cumstance which conclusively proves the coiTectness of trac- 
ing to him the views therein propounded. For we must 
divest ourselves of the notion that a teacher of this period 
ever put his ideas into writing ; oral delivery was his only 
method of imparting them to his pupils ; the knowdedge of 
them was transmitted by tradition, until it became fixed in 

The legend of ^unah^epa (vii. 13- come to hand (Nov. 30, 1875), see 
18), had been discussed by Roth; see Bibliotheca Indica^ New iSerieB^ No. 
also M. Muller, Uisi. of A. S, L,y p. 325 ; the text reaches as far as i. 
573, ff. Another section of it (viii. 4. i. 

5-20), treating of royal inaugnra- * See/. SUy i. 388, ff, 
lions, had previously been edited by This Aitjireyopanishad, amongst 

Schoiiborn (Berlin, 1862). others, has been edited (with ^aip- 

The first fasciculus of an edi- kara’s commentary) and translated 
tion, together with Sdyana's com- by Koer, BibL Ind.^ vii. 143, ff, 
meiuary, of the Aitsireya-Aranyaka, (Calc. 1850), xv. 28, ff. (1853). 
by Rdjendra Ldia Mitra, has just 



some definite form or other, always however retaining his 
name. It is in this way that we have to account for the fact of 
our finding the authors of works tliat have been handed down 
to us, mentioned in these w’orks themselves. For the rest, 
the doctrines of Aitareya must have found especial favour, 
and his pupils have been especially numerous ; for we find 
his name attached to the Bnihmana as well as the Aran- 
yaka With respect to the former, however, no reasons 
can for the present be . assigned, while for the fourth 
book of the Aranyaka we have the direct information that 
it belongs to .^kvalayana,* the pupil of ^auuaka; nay, 
this ^aunaka himself appears to have passed for the 
author of the fifth book, according to Colebrooke’s state- 
ments on the subject, Mi&c. Ess., i. 47, n. Tlie name of 
Aitareya is not traceable anywhere in the Brahmanas; 
he is first mentioned in the Chhandogyopanishad. The 
earliest allusion to the school of the Aitareyins is in the 
Sama-Siitras. — To judge from the repeated mention of 
them in the third book, the family of the Mandiikas, or 
Mdndiikeyas, must also have been particularly active in 
the development of the views there represented. Indeed, 
we find them specified later as one of the fivi; schools of 
the Rigveda; yet nothing bearing their name lias been 
preserved except an extremely abstruse Upanishad, and 
the Mandiiki-^iksha, a grammatical treatise. The former, 
however, apparently only belongs to the Atharvan, and 
exhibits completely the standpoint of a rigid system. The 
latter might possibly be traced back to the Maiiddkeya 
who is named here as well as in the Rik-Prati^akhya. 

The contents of the Aitareya-Aranyaka, as we now 
have it,® supply no direct to the time of its composi- 

* I find an A8valdyana-Bnlhma^»A 
also quoted, but am unable to give 
any particulars regarding it. [In 
a MS. of the Ait. Ar. , India Office 
Library, 986, the entire work is 

deicrilied at tiie end as Ahaldyanok- 

tom Aranyakanu] 

See I. Sty i. 387-392. lam 
now in possegsion of the complete 
text, but have nothing material to 
add to the above remarks. Great 
stress is laid upon keeping the par- 
ticular doctrines secret, and upon 

the high importance of those fami- 
liar with them. Among the nam-es 
mentioned in the course of the work, 

t ' 

Agnive^ydyana is of significance on 
account of its formation. The in- 
teresting passages on the three 
pd(has of the V tdUy nirhhttja = sam- 
hiMpdtha, 2}ratfinna = pada}ydiJia, 
and ubkayamantarena = kramapd^hay 
are discussed by Miiller on Rik- 
Prdt., i. 2-4(Bee alsotfeeVi., Nachtragty 
p. II). 



tion, other than the one already noticed, namely, that in 
the second chapter of the second book the extant arrange- 
ment of the I^-Samhitd is given. Again, the number 
of teachers individually mentioned is very great, particu- 
larly in the third book— among them are two iSakalyas, a 
Krishna Hdrita, a Pafichdlachan^a — and this may be con- 
sidered as an additional proof of its more recent origin, a 
conclusion already implied by the spirit and form of the 
opinions enunciated.*® 

The Kaushitakdranyaka, in its present form, consists of 
three books ; but it is uncertain whether it is complete.*^ 
It was only recently that I lighted upon the two first 
books.* These deal rather with ritual than with specula- 
tion. The third book is the so-called Kav£dtahy-IPpani- 
shaxl,’\ a work of the highest interest and importance. Its 
first adJiyAya gives us an extremely important account of 
the ideas held with regard to the path to, and arrival in, 
the world of the blessed, the significance of which in 
relation to similar ideas of other races is not yet quite 
apparent, but it promises to prove very rich in information. 
The second adhy&ya gives us in the ceremonies which it 
describes, amongst other things, a very pleasing picture of 
the warmth and tenderness of family ties at that period. 
The third adhy&ya is of inestimable value in connection 
with the history and development of the epic myth, inas- 
much as it represents Indra battling with the same powers 
of nature that Arjuna in the epic subdues as evil demons. 
Lastly, the fourth adhydya contains the second recension 
of a legend which also appears, under a somewhat different 

** The circumstance here empha- 9 gives the rivalry of the seiisea 
sised may be used to support the (like Satap, Br. 14. 9. 2). 
very opposite view; indeed I have * See Catalogue of the Berlin 
BO represented it in the similar case Skr. MSS., p. 19, n. 82. 
of the Ld^ydyana-Siitra (see below). t See /. St., i. 392-420, It would 
This latter view now appears to me be very desirable to know on what 
to have more in its favour. Foley's assertion is founded, “ that 

A manuscript sent to Berlin the Kausbitaki-Brdbma^a consists 
by Biihler {MS. Or. fol. 630) of the of nine adhydyas, the first, seventh, 
‘ ^dflkhdyana-Aranyaka ’ (as it is eighth, and ninth of wdnch form the 
there called) presents it in 15 adhy- Kaushltaki-Brdhmana-Upanishad/’ 
dyos/, the first two correspond to I have not succeeded in finding any 
Ait. Ar. i., v, ; adhy. 3-6 are made statement to tliis efiect elsewhere, 
up of the Kaush. Up.,; adhy. 7, 8 [See now Cowell’s Preface, p. vii., 
correspond to Ait. Ar. iii.; adhy. to his edition of the Kaush, Up. in 

the BM. Ind.] 



form, in the Aranyaka of the White Yajiis, the legend, 
namely, of the instruction of a Brahman, wlio is very wise 
in his own esteem, by a warrior called Ajata^atru, king of 
Ka^i. This Upanishad is also peculiarly ricli in geogra- 
pliical data, throwing light upon its origin. Thus the 
name of Chitra Gangy^yani, the wise king in the first 
adhyAya who instructs Aruni, clearly points to the Gaiiga. 
According to ii. lo, the northern and southern mountains, 
i.e., Himavant and Vindhya, enclose in the eyes of the 
author the whole of the known world, and the list of the 
luiighbouring tribes in iv. i perfectly accords with this. 
That, moreover, this Upanishad is exactly contemporaneous 
with the Vrihad-Aranyaka of the White Yajus is proved 
by the position of the names Aruni, ^vetaketu, Ajdta^atru, 
Gargya Balaki, and by the identity of the legends about 
the latter. [See I. St., i. 392-420.] 

We have an interpretation of both Aranyakas, that is to 
say, of the second and third books of the Aitareva-Aran- 
yaka, and of the third book of the Kaushitaki-Aranyaka 
in the commentary of Samkaiacharya, a teacher who lived 
about the eighth century a.d.,^ and who was of the 
highest importance for the Vedanta school. Tor not 
only did he interpret all the Vedic texts, that is, all the 
Upanishads, upon which that school is founded, he also 
commented on the Vedanta-Siitra itself, besides composing 
a number of smaller works with a view to elucidate and 
establish the Vedanta doctrine. His explanations, it is 
true, are often forced, from the fact of their having to 
accommodate themselves to the Vedanta system; still 
they are of high importance for us. Pupils of his, Anan- 
dajnana, Anaiidagiri, Anandatirtha, and others, in their 
turn composed glosses on his commentaries. Of most of 
these commentaries and glosses we are now in possession, 
as they have been recently edited, together with their 
Upanishads, by Dr. Boer, Secretary to the Asiatic Society 
of Bengal, in the BiJbliotheca Indica, a periodical appearing 
under the auspices of that Society, and devoted exclusively 

Saqikara’s date has not, unfor- 
tunately, been more accurately de- 
termined as yet. He passes aV the 
fiflme time for a zealous adversary 
of the Buddhists, and is therefore 

called a Saiva, or follower of Siva. 
In his works, however, he appears 
as a worshipper of Vdsndeva, whom 
he puts forward as the real incarna* 
tiou or representative of brahman^ 


to tlie publication of texts. Unfortunately the Kaushf* 
taki-Upanishad is not yet among the number, neither 
is the Maitrayany-Upanishad, of which we have to speak 
in the sequel It is, however, to be hoped that we shall 
yet receive both.*® — And may yet a third, the Vdshkala- 
Upanishad, be recovered and added to the list of these 
Upanishads of the Rik ! It is at present only known to 
us through Anquetil Dupeiron’s Oupnekhat, ii 366-371 ; 
the original must therefore have been extant at the time 
of the Persian translation (rendered into Latin by Anque- 
til) of the principal Upanishads (1656). The Vdshkala- 
^ruti is repeatedly mentioned by Sayana. We have seen 
above that a particular recension of the Rik-Samhita, 
which has likewise been lost, is attributed to the Vash- 
kalas. This Upanishad is therefore the one sorry relic 
left to us of an extensive cyele of literature. It rests 

upon a legend repeatedly mentioned in the Brahmanas, 
which in substance, and one might almost say in name 
also, corresponds to the Greek legend of Gany-Medes. 
Medhatithi, the son of Kanva, is carried up to heaven by 
liidra, who has assumed the form of a ram, and during 
their flight he inquires of Indra who he is. Indra, in 
reply, smilingly declares himself to be the All-god, identi- 
fying himself with the universe. As to the cause of the 
abduction, he goes on to say that, delighted with Medha- 
tithi’s penance, he desired to conduct him into the right 
path leading to truth ; he must therefore have no further 
misgiving. With regard to the date of this Upanishad, 
nothing more definite can of course at present be said 
than that its general tenor points to a tolerably high 


We now descend to the last stage in the literature of 
tlie Kigveda, viz.^ to its Sutras. 

First, of tlie Srauta-Sutras, or text-books of the sacri- 
ficial rite. Of these we possess two, the Siitra of Asvala- 
yana in 12 adhydyas, and that of Saukhayana in 18 

ss Uoth have now been published Maitri-Up. with that of Rdmatirtha 
and translated by Cowell in the (1863-69). 

Bihliotheca Indica. The Kaush.-Up. See now iny special paper on the 
(Calc. 1861) is accompanied with subject in /. Sf., ix. 38-42 ; the ori- 
the comm, of Samkai^nanda, the ginal text has not yet been met with. 



adhyuyas. The former connects itself with the Aitareya- 
Brahiiiana, the latter with the Safikhayana-Brahmana, and 
from these two works frequent literal quotations are re- 
spectively borrowed. From this circumstance alone, as 
well as from the general handling of the subject, we miglit 
infer that these Sutras are of comparatively recent origin ; 
and direct testimony is not wanting to establish the fact. 
Thus the name A^valayana is probably to be traced back 
to A^vala, whom we find mentioned in the Aranyaka of 
the White Yajus as the Hotar of daiiaka, king of Videha 
(see I. St., i. 441). Again, the formation of the word by 
the affix dyana* probably leads us to the time of estab- 
lished schools {ayana) ? However this may be, names 
formed in this way occur but seldom in the Brahmanas 
themselves, and only in their latest portions ; in general, 
therefore, they always betoken a late period. We find 
corroboration of this in the data supplied by the contents 
of the A^valayana-Siitra. Among the teachers there 
quoted is an Aimarathya, whose kalpa (doctrine) is con- 
sidered by the scholiast on Panini, iv. 3, 105, probably 
following the Mahabhashya,^^ as belonging to the new 
kalpas implied in this rule, in contradistinction to the old 
kalpas. If, then, the authorities quoted by Asvalayana 
were regarded as recent, A^vahiyana himself must of 
course have been still more modern; and therefore we 
conclude, assuming this statement to originate from the 

> O / O 

Mahdbhdshya,*^ that Asvalayana was nearly contemporane- 
ous with Panini. Another teacher quoted by Asvalayana, 
Taulvali, is expressly mentioned by Panini (ii. 4. 61) as 
belonging to the prdnchas, or “ dwellers in the east.” — ^At 
the end there is a s])ecially interesting enumeration of the 
various Brahmana-families, and their distribution among 
the family stems of Bhrigu, Angiras, Atri, Vi^vamitra, 
Ka^yapa, Vasishtha, and Agastya. — The sacrifices on the 
Sarasvati, of which I shall treat in the sequel, are here only 
briefly touched upon, and this with some differences in the 

* Ab in the case of AqiiiveSyi- 
yana, AlainV»iiyana, Aiti.siiyanu, A« 
dumbantyana, Kund.iin;lyaii:i, Kd- 
tydyaua, Khd^dyana, Drdhydyana, 
PJdkBhdyana, Bdtlardyana, Mdnd 4 kd- 
ywiai Rd^dyaiia, Ldtydy«ana, I^ibu- 

kdyana.(?), Ldniakdyan;t, Vdi’slr;jr,(- 
yuni, Sdkatdyana, Sankhdyana, Sd- 
i/dyaiia. Sdndilydyaiia, Sdiaiiikdyana, 
Saitydyuna, Saulvdyana, &c. 

The name is not known in the 
Mahdbhdshya^ see /. St,, xiii. 455* 



names, which may well he considered as later corruptions. 
We have also already seen that A.4valayana is the author 
of the fourth book of the Aitareya-Aranyaka, as also that 
he was the pupil of ^aunaka, who is stated to have de- 
stroyed his own Sdtra in favour of his pupU’s work. 

The Siitra of ^dnkhdyana wears in general a somewhat 
more ancient aspect, particularly in the fifteenth and six- 
teenth books, where it assumes the appearance of a Brah- 
mana. The seventeenth and eighteenth books are a later 
addition, and are also ranked independently, and sepa- 
rately commented upon. They correspond to the first two 
books of the Kaushitaki-Aranyaka. 

From my but superficial acquaintance with them, I am 
not at present in a position to give more detailed informa- 
tion as to the contents and mutual relation of these two 
Siitras.^^ My conjecture would be that their differences 
may rest upon local grounds also, and that the Siitra of 
Aivalayaua, as well as the Ailareya-Brahmana, may be- 
long to the eastern part of Hindustan ; the Siitra of Silu- 
khayana, on the contrary, like his Brahmana, rather to 
the western.* The order of the ceremonial is pretty much 
the same in both, though the great sacrifices of the kings, 
&c., viz., vdjapeya (sacrifice for the prospering of the means 
of subsistence), rdjas^ya (consecration of the king), aha- 
medha (horse sacrifice), pui'mhamedha (human sacrifice), 
sarvaTnedha (universal sacrifice), are handled by Sankha- 
yaua with far more minuteness. 

For A^valayana I find mention made of a commentary 
by Narayana,^^ the son of Krishnajit, a grandson of 
^ripati. A namesake of his, but son of Pasupatisarman, 

" The AAvaWyaiia-Stitra has since This is a confusion. The above- 
been printed, /nd. (Calc. 1864- named Ndrdppa wrote a commen- 
74), accompanied with the comm, tury upon the ^dftkhdyana-Criljya ; 
of Ndrdya^a Gdrgvn, edited by Hdma- but tlie one who commented the 
Ndrdyit^u and Anamiaehandra. A Advalayana-Srauta-Sdtra calls him- 
special comparison of it with the self in the introduction a son of 
Slhkhayana-Sdtra is still wanting. Narasihha, just as Kdidya^a, tlic 
Biililer, Calalogut of MSS, from commentator of the Uttara-Nai- 
Oujardt, i. 154 (1871), cites a com- bhadhiya, does, who, according to 
mentary by Devatrdta on the A&v, tradition (Roer, Pref., p. viii., 1855), 
Sr. S., likewise a partial one by lived some five hundred years ago, 
Vidydrat[^ya. Are these two to be regarded as one 

* Perhaps to the Naiinisha fo- and the same person? See /. Slr,^ 
rest (?). See below, p. 59. a, 298 (1869). 



composed a paddhati (‘ outlines’) to Safikhay ana, after the 
example of one Brahmadatta. When he lived is uncer- 
tain, but we may with some probability assign him to the 
sixteenth century. According to his own statements he 
was a native of Malayade^a. Further, for the SiUra of 
^ankiiayana we have the commentary of Varadattasuta 
Anarttiya. Three of its adhydyas were lost, and have 
been supplied by Dasa^arman Munjasunu, viz., the ninth, 
tenth, and eleventh.^^ On the last two adhydyas, xvii., 
xviii., there is a commentary by Govinda. That tliese 
commentaries were preceded by others, which, however, 
have since been lost, is obvious, and is besides expressly 
stated by Anarttiya. 

Of the Grihya-S'dtras of the Rigveda we likewise only 
possess two, those of A^vahlyana (in four adhydyas) and 
of ^ankhayana (in six adhydyas). That of Saunaka is 
indeed repeatedly mentioned, but it does not seem to be 
any longer in existence. 

However widely they may differ as to details, the con- 
tents of the two works are essentially identical, especially 
as regards the order and distribution of the matter. They 
treat mainly, as 1 have already stated (p. 17), of the 
ceremonies to be performed in the various stages of con- 
jugal and family life, before and after a birth, at marriage, 
at the time of and after a death. Besides these, however, 
maimers and customs of the most diverse character are 
depicted, and “ in particular, the sayings and formulas to 
be uttered on different occasions bear the impress of a very 
higli antiquity, and frequently carry us back into the time 
when Brahmanism had not yet been developed” (see 
Stenzler in I. hit., ii. 1 59). It is principally popular and 
super.slitious notions that are found in them ; thus, we are 
pointed to star-w’orship, to astrology, portents, and witch- 
craft, and more especially to the adoration and propitia- 
tion of the evil powers in nature, the averting of their 
malign influence, &c. It is especially in the pip'itarpana, 
or oblation to the Manes, that we find a decisive proot of 

^ Sections 3-5 of the fourth book Streiter (i86i) ; the variants pre- 
have been published by Donner in sented therein to the parallel pas- 
his Pif^apitfiyajna (Berlin, 1870), sage in the Ait. Bnlhm.had alreaily 
and the section relating to the le- been given by M, Muller, A, 6'. L. 
gend of dunah^pa (xv. 17-27) by p. 573, ff. 



the modem composition of these works, as the forefathers 
are there enumerated individually by name — a custom 
which, although in itself it may be very ancient (as we 
find a perfect analogy to it in the Yeshts and Nerengs of 
the Parsis), yet in this particular application belongs to a 
very recent period, as is apparent from the names them- 
selves. For not only are the ^shis of the Rik-Samhita 
cited in their extant order, but all those names are like- 
wise mentioned which we encounter as particularly signi- 
ficant in the formation of the different schools of the Rik, 
as well as in connection with its Brdhmanas and Sutras ; 
for example, Vashkala, ^akalya, Mdndukeya, Aitareya, 
Paifigya, Kaushftaka, ^aunaka, A^valayana, and ^nkha- 
yana themselves, &c. Joined to these, we find other 
names with which we are not yet otlierwise acquainted, 
as also the names of three female sages, one of whom, 
Gargf Vachaknavi, meets us repeatedly in the Vrihad- 
Aranyaka of the White Yajus, as residing at the court of 
Janaka. The second^® is unknown ; but the name of the 
third, Sulabhd Maitreyf, is both connected with this very 
Janaka in the legends of the Maha-Bharata,* and also 
points us to the Saulabhdni ErdhTnavd/ni, quoted by the 
scholiast on Pdnini, iv. 3. 105, probably on the authority 
of the Mahabhashya,^® as an instance of the ‘modern’ 
Brahmanas implied by this rule. Immediately after the 
Rishis of the Rik-Samhita, we find mention of other names 
and works which have not yet been met with in any other 
part of Vedic literature. In the ^ankhayana-Grihya we 
have tliese : SumantvrJaimini- Vaiiampdya'na-Paila-s'dtroi- 
hhdshya [-Gdrgya-Bahhru] . . .; and in tlm A^valayana- 
Grihya these : Sumantu-Jaimini- VaUampdyana-Paila- 
vdira-hhdrata^mahdhhdrata-dJiarTridchdrydJi.*’^ The latter 

" Her name is Vadav^ Prdti- They are there cited a second time 
tlieyi; a teacher called PratUhi is also, to Pdn., iv. 2, 68, and are ex- 
mentioned in the Yahsa-Brdhma^a plained l>y Kaiya^ as Svldblu/iia 
of the Sdmaveda. ’prolctdni, 

* [Cf. ^ai|ikara 8 statements as to The word bhdshya is to be in- 
this in Ved. Sdtrabii. to iii. 3.32, serted above between aiUra and hkd- 
p. 915, cd. Rdma Ndr.iyana.] Bud- rata; though w^anting in the MS. 
dha’s uncle is called by the Bud- used by me at the time when I 
dhists Sulabha ; see Schiefner, Le* wrote, it is found in all the othat 
ben des Sdkyamuniy p. 6. MSS, 

^ See on this L xiii, 429, 



passage is evidently the more modern, and although we 
must not suppose that tlie Maha-P>harata in its present 
form is here referred to, still, in the expression “ Vaisam- 
pdyano mahdhhdratdckdrydh" apparently indicated by this 
passage, there must at all events be im])lied a work of 
some compass, treating of the same legend, and there- 
fore forming the basis of our extant text. The passage 
seems also to indicate that the same material had already 
been handled a second time by Jaimini, whose work, 
however, can have borne but a distant resemblance to the 
Jaimini-Bharata of the present day. We shall find in 
the sequel frequent confirmation of the fact that the origin 
of the epic and the systematic development of Vedic litera- 
ture in its. different schools belong to the same period. Of 
a Sutra by Sumantu, and a Dharma by Paila, we have no 
knowledge whatever. It is only in more modern times, 
in the Puranas and in the legal literature proper, that I 
find a work attributed to Sumantu, namely, a Smriti- 
S^tra; while to Paila (whose name appears from I’an. 
iv. I. 1 1 8) is ascribed the revelation of the Rigveda — a 
circumstance which at least justifies the inference that he 
played a special part in the definitive completion of its 
school development. — It is, however, possible to give a 
wholly different interpretation of the passage from A^va- 
liiyana ; and in my opinion it would be preferable to do so. 
We may divest the four proper names of any special rela- 
tion to the names of the four works, and regard the two 
groups as independent,** as we must evidently assume 
them to be in the Saflkhayana-Grihya.* If this be done, 
then what most readily suggests itself in connection with 
the passage is the manner in which the Puranas apportion 

^ This interpretation becomes 
imperative after the rectification of 
tiie text (see the previous note), 
according to which no longer four, 
but fire names of works are in ques- 

* What is meant in the latter 
[and of. note 47 in the A^v. Ghrib. 
too] by the word bhdihya, appears 
from the PrdtisAkhya of the White 
Yajus, where (i. i. 19, 20) fcd««Ai<and 
md^yenhu are found in contradis- 

tinction to one another, just as in 
the PrdtiKikhya of the Black Yiijus 
(ii. 12) we find chhandas and bhdshd, 
and in Ydska anvadhydya and 
bhdshd. We must, therefore, under- 
stand by it ‘ works in bhdshd,' 
though the meaning of the word 
is here more developed than in the 
works just mentioned, and ap- 
proaches tlic sense in whicli IMnini 
uses it. 1 shall return to the sub- 
ject further on. 


the revelation of the several Vedas; inasmuch as they 
assign the Atharvaveda to Sumantu, the Samaveda to 
Jaimini, the Tajurveda to VaiiSampdyana, and the Rigveda 
to FaUa. But in either case we must assume with Roth, 
who first pointed out the passage in Aivalayana i&p. c., p. 
27), that this passage, as well as the one in Sdflkhdyana, 
has been touched up by later interpolation;*® otherwise 
the dates of these two G^ya-Siitras would be brought 
down too far ! For although, from the whole tenor of both 
passages, that in the Aivalayana-Giihya, as well as that in 
the ^fikhdyana-Grihya — ^which for the rest present other 
material discrepancies of detail — it is sufficiently clear 
that they presuppose the literature of the Rigveda as 
entirely closed, still the general attitude of both works 
shows their comparatively ancient origin. — The question 
whether any connection exists between the Smriti-Sastra 
of Saiikha and the Grihya-Siitra of Sankhayana, remains 

still unanswered. 

For both Grihya-Sfitras there are commentaries bv the 
same Narayana who commented the Srauta-Siitra of A^va- 
layana.®® They probably belong to the fifteenth century.* 
There are, besides, as in the case of the Srauta-Sutras, 

" We find the Suniantu-Jaimini- comm, of the ^ktfikh. Gylhya, eon of 
VaUavipdyana - Pailddyd dchAi'ydh Krislmajit, and grandson of Sripati. 
quoted a second time in the ^kl&kh. (This third Ndr. lived a.d» I 53 ^> 

0 ., in its last section (vi. 6), which Catalogue of the Berlin M»SS., p. 
is probably of later origin ; and here, 354 * ^0, 1282.) The text of 

without any doubt, the reference is the Adval, Grihya has been edited 
to the same distribution of the four by Stcnzler, witli a translation (/«• 
Vedas among the above-named per- dische /{(iu» 7 *cgelnf 1864-65) ; the 
sonages wliich occurs in the V^ishnu- text, with Ndrdyaoa s comm., by 
Purd^a, iii. 4. 8, 9, Both times the Rdmanarayania and Anaudachandra, 

representative of the Alharvau in Bibl, Ind, (1866-69)- 
comes first, that of the Rik last, tioiis relating to marriage ceremo- 
which in a Rik text serves asacloar nies have been edited by Haas, L 
proof that we have here to do with v. 283? ff. 5 those relating to 
later appendages. A similar prece- funeral rites, by Muller, Z» D. M. 

donee is g^ven to the Atharvaveda in 6^., ix« 

the Mahdbhdshya; cf, /. -8^., xiii. * Two glosses on Sarpkara’s com- 

mentary on the Prasnopanishad and 

This is a mistake, see note the Mun^akopanishad bear the same 
43; all three Ndrdya^as must be name, so that possibly the author of 
kept distinct. The commentator of them is identical with the above- 
the Awval. Sr. S. calls himself a named Ndrdyana. Acc. to what has 
Odrgya, and son of Narasinha ; the just been remarked in note 50, this 
comm, of the Adval. Ophya, a Nai- must appear A prraH very doubtful, 
ibruva, and son of Divdkara; the since a considerable number of other 



many small treatises in connection with the Grihya- 
Siitras, some of them being summaries, in which the larger 
works are reduced to system. Among them is a Paddhati 
to the ^ankhayana-Grihya by Ramachaiidra, who lived in 
the Naimisha forest in the middle of the fiftoentli century ; 
and I am inclined to think that this Naimisha forest was 
the birthplace of the Sutra itself. It is perhaps for this 
reason that the tradition connected with it was so well 

preserved in that district. ^ _ 

The extant PrAti^dkliya-SiLitTa of the Rik-Samhita is 

ascribed to 4aunaka, who has been repeatedly mentioned 
already, and who was the teacher of A^valayana. This 
extensive work is a metrical composition, divided into 
three kdndas, of six pa^ala^ each, and containing 103 
kandikds in all. The first information regarding it was 
given by Roth, op. c., p. 53 > According to tradition, it 
is of more ancient origin than the Sutras of Aivalayana 
just mentioned, which only purport to be written by the 
pupil of this ^aunaka ; but whether it really was composed 
by the latter, or whether it is not much more probably 
merely the work of his school, must for the present remain 
undecided. The names quoted in it are in part identical 
with those met with in Yaska’s Nirukti and in the Sutra 
of Panini. The contents of the work itself are, however, 
as yet but little known^^ in their details. Of special in- 
terest are those passages which treat of the correct and 
incorrect pronunciation of words in general. There is an 
excellent commentary on it by Oata, which protesses in 
the introduction to be a remodelling of an earlier com- 
mentary by Vishpuputra. — The Upolckha is to be con- 

authors bear the same name* But 
in this particular case we are able 
to bring lerward definite reasons 
against this identification. Tlie 
glossarist of the Prasnop. was called 
Ndrdyai^endra according to I, St,, 
i. 470; according to the note, ibid,, 
i* 439, Ndrdya^ Sarasvali; accord- 
ing to Aufrecht, Catalogue of the 
Oxford MSS., p. 366 (1859-64), 
rather Rdyanendramrasvati (!). Tlie 
glossarist of the Mu^^^ikop., on the 
other hand, was, according to I, St,, 
i. 470, called Ndvdyai^iabhaUa ; and 

ho is probably identical with the 
author of the dlpikd on the small 
Atharvopanishads published in the 
BibL Jnd. in 1872, who {ibid,, p. 
393) called I>ka((a Ndrdyana, and 

son of Bhat^a Katndkara.] 

We arc now in possession of 
two editions of this most important 
work, text and translation, with 
elucidatory notes, by Ad. liegnier 
(Paris, 1857-58), and M. Miillcr 
(Leipzig, 1856-69) ; see T, Sir., ii. 
94, fF., 127, ff., 159, fl . ; Lit. 6Vn« 
iraiblatl, 1870, p. 530. 

6 o 


sidered as aa epitome of the Prdti^akhya-Siitra, and to 
some extent as a supplement to it [specially to chapters 
X. xi.]. It is a short treatise, numbered among the 
Pari^ishtas (supplements); and it has in its turn been' 

repeatedly commented upon 

A few other treatises have still to be noticed here, which, 
although they bear the high-sounding name of Veddrigas, 
or ‘ members of the Veda,’ are yet, as above stated (p. 25), 
only to be looked upon as later supplements to the litera- 
ture of the Rigveda : the ^ikshd, the Chhandas, and the 
Jyotisha. All three exist in a double recension according 
as they profess to belong to the Rigveda or to the Yajur- 
veda. The Chhandas is essentially alike in both recen- 
sions, and we have to recognise in it the Siitra on prosody 
ascribed to Pifigala.®^ It is, moreover, like both the other 
treatises, of very recent origin. We have a proof of this, 
for instance, in the fact that, in the manner peculiar to 
the Indians, it expresses numbers by words,®* and feet by 
letters, and that it treats of the highly elaborated metres, 
which are only found in modern poetry.®® The part deal- 
ing withVedic metres may perhaps be more ancient. The 
teachers quoted in it bear in part comparatively ancient 

•* Edited by W. Pertsch (Berlin, •* Edited and commented bv my- 
1854) ; this tract treaU of the^awa- self in I. St., viii, (1863); the' text, 
pdtha, an extended form of tlie^a- together with the commentary of 
dapdfha, which at the same time Haliiyudha, edited by Vi^vandtha- 
gives the text in the sam/tiM form, sastrin in BiU. Imlica (1871-74). 
namely, each word twice, first joined See Albirtini’s account in Woep- 

with the preceding, and tlieii with cke’s Mevioire sur la propwjtUion 
the following word (tlius ; ab, bc,cd, des chiffres indiens, p. 102, ff. (1863). 
de . . .). There are also other still Burnell, Blem. of S. I. Palceogr., 
more complicated modes of reciting p. 58. 

the Veda, as to which cf. Thibautin ** On the other hand, there are 
his edition of the Jatdpatala (1870), metres taught in thU work which 
p. 36, flf. The next step, called but rarely occur in modern litera- 
jaid, exhibits the text in the follow- ture, and which must be looked 
ing manner : ab ba ah, be cb be, and upon as obsolete and out of fashion. 

MSS. of this kind have actually Therefore, in spite of what has been 

been preserved, e.ff., in the case of said above, we must carrv back tbo 
the V^as. Saiph. The following date of its composition to a period 
step, called flr^rtna, is said to be still about simultaneous with the close 
in use; cf. Bhandarkar, Indian An- of the Vedic Sdtra literature, or the 
tvinary, iii. 133 ; Hang, Ueber das commencement of the a.stronomical 
Wesen des vedischen A ccents, p. 58 ; and algebraical literatures ; see I. St , 
it runs : ab ba abc eba abc, be cb be viii. 177, 178. 
bed deb bed. 


names. These are: Kraushtuki, Tandin, Yaska, Saitava, 
Kata, and Mandavya. The recensions most at variance 
witli each otlier are those of the Siksha and Jyotisha 
respectively. The former work is in both recensions 
directly traced to Panini, the latter to Lagadha, or Lagata 
an otherwise unknown name in Indian literature.*— Besides 
the Paniniya Siksha, there is another bearing the name of 
the Mandukas, which therefore may more directly follow 
the Rilv, and which is at any rate a more important work 
than the former. As a proof of the antiquity of the name 
‘ Siksha ’ for phonetic investigations, we may adduce tlie 
circumstance that in the Taitt. A.rany., vii. i, we find a 
section beginning thus : “ we will explain the Siksha ; ” 
whereupon it gives the titles of»the topics of the oral 
exposition which we may suppose to have been connected 
therewith ( 7 . St., ii. 21 1), and which, to judge by these 
titles, must have embraced letters, accents, quantity, arti- 
culation, and the rules of euphony, that is to say, the same 
subjects discussed in the two existing Sikshds.®® 

Of the writings called Anukrmnani, in which the 
metre, the deity, and the author of each song are given in 
their proper order, several have come down to us for the 
Uik- Sainhita, including an AnuvdkdnukraTmni by Sau- 
naka, and a Sarvdnnkramani by Katyiiyana.®^ For both 
of we have an excellent commcnlary by Shadguru- 

* Reinaud in liis M 6 moire $ur ^ The Pd^iiniyd Siksbii has been 
VInde, pp. 331, 332, adduces from printed with a translation in /. St,, 
AIbh’dui a Lita, who pjissed for the iv. 345-371 (1858); on the numerous 
author of the old Stiryu-Siddhdnta ; other treatises bearing the same 
might he not be identical with this name, see Rdjendra Ldia Mitra, 
Lagadha, Lagata? According to Noticts of Sanskrit MSS.^ i, 71, ff. 
Colebr,, Am., ii. 409, Brahmagupta (1870), Burnell, Ccdalogue of Vedic 
quotes a Lddhdchdrya ; this name fl/SA., pp. 8, 42 (1870), my essay on 
also could be traced to Lagadha. the Pratijhas^tra (1872), pp. 70-74; 
[By Sdryadeva, a scholiast of Arya- specially on the Mdnijuki Sikshd, pp, 
bha^, the author of the Jyotisha is 106-112; Haug, Uebei^ das Wesvn 
cited under the name of Laga^- des vedischm Accents^ p, 53, ff. 
chdrya; see Kem, Preface to the (1873), on the Ndrada Sikshd, 
Aryabhatiya, p, ix., 1874, An edi- 57, ff , and lastly Kielhorn, /. Sty 
tion of the text of the Jyotisha, to- xiv. ito. 

gether with extracts from Somd- In substance published by 

kara’s commentary and explanatory Muller in the sixth volume of hii 
notes, was published by me in 1862 large edition of the Rik, pp. 621- 
undey the title : Veher den Vedaka- 671. 
lender, Namene Jyoiitiham^l 



^ishya, whose time is unknown,*® as also his real name. 
The names of the six teachers from whom he took this 
surname are enumerated by himself ; they are Vinay aka, 
Tri^iildfika, Govinda, Siirya, Vyasa, and &vayogin, and he 
connects their names with those of the corresponding 
deities. — Another work belonging to this placOj the Bri- 
haddevat^ has been already mentioned (p. 24), as attri- 
buted to ^unaka^ and as being of great importance, con- 
taining as it does a rich store of mythical fables and 
legends. Prom Kuhn’s communications on the subject 
(I. St., i. 10 1- 1 20), it appears that this work is of tolerably 
late origin, as it chiefly follows Ydska’s Nirukta, and pro- 
bably therefore only belongs to ^aunaka in the sense of 
having proceeded from his school. It mentions a few 
more teachers in addition to those quoted by Yaska, as 
Bhjiguri and A^valayana ; and it also presupposes, by fre- 
quently quoting them, the existence of the Aitareyaka, 
Bhdllavi-Brdhmana, and Nidana-Sdtra. As the author 
strictly adheres to the order of the hymns observed in the 
Samhita, it results that in the recension of the text used 
by him there were a few deviations from that of the 
^akalas which has been handed down to us. In fact, he 
here and there makes direct reference to the text of the 
Vdshkalas, to which, consequently, he must also have had 
access. —Lastly, we have to mention the writings called 
Rigvidkdna, &c., which, although some of them bear the 
name of iSaunaka, probably belong only to the time of the 
Purdnas. They treat of the mystic and magic efficacy of 
the recitation of the hymns of the Rik, or even of single 
verses of it, and the like. There are, likewise, a number 
of other similar PariSishtas (supplements) under various 
names ; for instance, a Bahvricha-Paridishta, ^dnkhdyana-P., 
ASvaldyana-Grihya-P., &c. 

“ His work woB composed towards about 1187 A.D.-cf. /. St,^ viii. 160. 
the close of the twelfth century, n. (1863). 


I now turn to the Bdmaveda* 

The SamMtd of the Saniavetla is an anthology taken 
from the Rik-Sainhita, comprising those of its verses 
which were intended to he chanted at the ceremonies of 
the Soma sacrifice. Its arrangement would seem to be 
guided by the order of the Rik-Samhita ; but here, as in 
the case of the two Samhitas of the Yajus, we must not 
think to find any continuous connection. I’roperly speak- 
ing, each verse is to be considered as standing by itself : it 
only receives its real sense when taken in connection with 
the particular ceremony to which it belongs. So stands 
the case at least in the first part of the Sama-Samhita. 
Tliis is divided into six 'prwpdtlmkas, each of which f con- 
sists of ten daiats or decades, of ten verses each, a division 
which existed as early as the time of the second part of 
the ^atapatha-Brahmana, and within which the separate 
verses are distributed according to the deities to whom 
they are addressed. The first twelve decades contain in- 
vocations of Agni, the last eleven invocations of Soma, 
wliile the thirty-six intermediate ones are for the most 
part addressed to Indra. The second part of the Sama- 
Sarnhita, on the contrary, which is divided into nine jjra- 
fdthakas, each of which again is subdivided into two or 
occasionally three sections, invariably presents several, 
usually three, verses closely connected with one anotlier, 
and foiining an independent group, the fir.stof them having 
generally apjjeared already in the first part. The prin- 
ciple of distribution here is as yet obscure.®® In the Sam- 
hita these verses are still exhibited in their ric7i-fonn, 
although with the scimayi-accents ; but in addition to this 
we have four ydnds, or song-books, in which they appear 
in their sdman-ioxm. For, in singing they were consider- 

* See /• 8 t., i. 28-66. 
t Except the last, which contains 
tnly nine decades. 

^ The first part of the Sainhitd is 
referred to under the names drcAtX'a, 
chhafidoB, chltandasikdy the second 
u^rdrehika or uttard ; the de* 
•ignatiou of the latter as aiauhhika 
(aee /. i. 29, 30, 66), into the 

use of which my example has 
misled Muller also, lliatory of 
A. S, L., p. 473, n., is wrong, see 
Afonatsberichle derBerL A cad . , 1 868, 
p. 238. According to Durga, the 
author of the padapdtha of the 
Sama Sanihitd was a Gdrgya ; see 
lloth, Coinin., j), 39 (respecting thif 
family, see I, xiii. 41 1). 



ably altered by the* prolongation and repetition of the 
syllables, by the insertion of additional syllables, serving 
as a rest for the chanting, and so forth; and only thus 
were they transformed into sdmans. Two of these song- 
books, the Qrd/mageya-gdna (erroneously called Veya- 
gdnoi), in seventeen jyrwpdthal^, and the Araijya-gdna, 
in six jprwpdthakas, follow the order of the richas contained 
in the first part of the Samhita ; the former being intended 
for chanting in the grdmas, or inhabited places, the latter 
for chanting in the forest. Their order is fixed in a com- 
paratively very ancient Anukramani, which even bears 
the name of Brahmana, viz., Rishi-Brdhmana,. The other 
two gdnas, the tfha-gdna, in twenty-three prapdthdkas, and 
the 'OhycL-gdna, in six prapdthahas, follow the order of the 
richas contained in the second part of the Samhita. Their 
mutual relation here still requires closer investigation. 
Each such sdman evolved out of a rich has a special tech- 
nical name, which probably in most cases originated from 
the first inventor of tlie form in question, is often, how- 
ever, borrowed from other considerations, and is usually 
placed in the manuscripts before the text itself. As each 
rich can be chanted in a great variety of ways, in each oi 
which it bears a particular name, the number of sdrmns^ 
strictly speaking, is quite unlimited, and is of course far 
greater than that of the richas contained in the Samhita. 
Of these latter there are 1549,* of which all but seventy- 
eight have been traced in the Rik-Samhita. Most of them 
are taken from its eighth and ninth mandalas. 

I have already remarked (p. 9) upon the antiquity of 
the readings of the Silina-Samhita as compared with those 
of the Rik-Samhita. It follows from this almost with 

• Benfey [Einieitung^ p, xix.] 
erroneously states the number as 
1472, which I copied from him, /. 
St., i, 29, 30. The above number is 
borrowed from a paper by Wliitney, 
which will probably find a place in 
t\\e Inidiache Studien. Tlie total num- 
ber of the fichoi contained in the 
Sdiiia-Sai|ihitd is l8lo (585 in the 
first, 1225 in the second part), from 
which, however, 261 are to be de- 
ducted as mere repetitions, inas- 

much as 249 of those occurring in 
the first part are repeated in the 
second, three of them twice, while 
nine of the ^ichas which occur in 
the second part only, appear twice. 
[Sec on this.Whituey*8 detailed table 
at the end of his TabeUarische Dar- 
dellung der gegenseitigcn Verkdlt* 
nisse der SaTpJiitdi dea Rik, Sdman^ 
Weiaacn Yajus, latd Atharvan, 1 , 
ii. 321, ff., 363 (1853)]. 



certainty that the richas constitaiting the former were bor- 
rowed from the songs of the latter at a remote period, 
before their formation into a Rik-Samhita had as yet 
taken place ; so that in the interval they suffered a good 
deal of Aveariug down in the mouth of the people, which 
was avoided in the case of the richas applied as sdmans, and 
so protected by being used in worship. The fact has also 
already been stated that no verses have been received into 
the Sama-Samhita from those songs of the Rik-Samhita 

* o • • 

which must be considered as the most modern. Thus we 
find no sdmans borrowed from the Purusha-Siikta, in the 
ordinary recensions at least, for the school of the Naigeyas 
has, in fact, incorporated the first five verses of it into the 
seventh prapdthaka of the first part — a section which is 
peculiar to this school. The Sdma-Samhitd, being a purely 
derivative production, gives us no clue towards the deter- 
mination of its date. It has come down to us in two 
recensions, on the whole differing but little from each 
other, one of which belongs to the school of the Randyani- 
yas, the other to that of the Kauthumas. Of this latter 
the school of the Negas, or Naigeyas, alluded to above, is 
a subdivision, of which two Anukramanls at least, one 01 
the deities and one of the Rishis of the several verses, 
have been preserved to us.®® Not one of these three 
names has as yet been traced in Vedic literature; it is 
only in the Siitras of the Samaveda itself tliat the first 
and second at least are mentioned, but even here the name 
of the Negas does not appear. — The text of the Randyanl- 
yas was edited and translated, with strict reference to 
Sayana’s commentary, by the missionary Stevenson in 
1842; since 1848 we have been in possession of another 
edition, furnished with a complete glossary and much 

The seventh prapdthaka, which specially refers to the Aj anyaka- 
is peculiar to it, has since been dis- Saipbitu, see Burnell, Catalogue of 
covered. It bears the title Aran- Vedic MSS. (1870), p. 39. — Of the 
yaka-Saqihitd, and has been edited Aranyaka-gana as well as of the 
by Siegfried Goldschmidt in Mo- Gnimageya-gilna we find, p. 49, 
KM^Uherichtedei' Bci'l, Acad, 1868, pp. a text in tlie Jaiinini-^'lkhil also. 
228-^48. The editor pitiiits out that According to lldjondra Ldla Mitra 
the Aranya-gana is based upon the (Preface to Translation of Chhdnd. 
drehika of the Naigeya text (/. c., p. Up., p. 4), * the Kauthuma (-6dkhd) 
238), and tliat MSS. have probably is current in Quzerat, the Jaimi- 
been preserved of its ultardrehika nlya in Karnd^aka, and the Kdndya- 
also (p, 241). — A London MS. of niya in Mahai^htra.' 
Bhdratasvdmin's Sduiavedavivarapa g 



additional material, ^ together with translation, which we 
owe to Professor Benfey, of Gottingen.®^ 

Although, from its very nature, the Samhita of the 
Sdmaveda is poor in data throwing light upon the time of 
its origin, yet its remaining literature contains an abun- 
dance of these ; and first of all, the Brdihmwnas. 

The first and most important of these is the Td'ndyo^ 
Brdhma'm, also called PalicTiavinia, from its containing 
twenty-five hooks. Its contents, it is true, are in the 
TTiftin of a very dry and unprofitable character; for in 
mystic trifling it often exceeds all bounds, as indeed it 
was the adherents of the Samaveda generally who carried 
matters furthest in this direction. Nevertheless, from its 
great extent, this work contains a mass of highly interest- 
ing legends, as well as of information generally. It refers 
solely to the celebration of the Soma sacrifices, and to the 
chanting of the sdmans accompanying it, wliich are quoted 
by their technical names. These sacrifices were celebrated 
in a great variety of ways ; there is one special classifica- 
tion of them according as they extended over one day or 
several, or finally over more than twelve days.®^ The 
latter, called sattras, or sessions, could only be performed 
by Brahmans, and that in considerable numbers, and might 
last lOO days, or even several years. In consequence of 
the great variety of ceremonies thus involved, each bears 
its own name, which is borrowed either from the object of 
its celebration, or the sage who was the first to celebrate 
it, or from other considerations. How far the order of the 
Samhita is here observed has not yet been investigated, 

Recently a new edition, like- is said to be still in existence in 
wise very meritorious, of the first Malabar ; see Rost, 7 . St., ix. 
two books, the dgneyam and the afn- 176. 

dwjim jf>arva, of the drehika (up to L To each Soma sacrifice belong 

5. 2. 3. 10), has been published by several (four at least) preparatory- 
S.atyavrata Sdmil^rainin, in the Bib- days ; these are not here taken into 
Uotheca Indica (1871-74), accom- account. The above division refers 
panied by the corresponding por- only to those days when Soma juice 
tions { jirajidthakaz 1-12) of the is expressed, that is, to the sulyd 
Geyagina, and the complete com- days. Soma sacrifices having only 
mentary of Sdya^a, and other illiis- one such day are called ekdha; those 
trativc matter. — The division of the with from two to twelve, ahina. 
sdmaiis into partana is first men- lasting a whole year, or even 

tioned by Pdraskara, ii. la {adkyd- longer, are called ayana. For the 
yddtn prabrdydd, rishimukhdni bah- sutyd festival there are seven funda- 
vrichdndm, parvdni chhandogdndm), mental forms, called 7 . St^ 

A Ravanabhdshya on the Sdmaveda ** 352 - 355 * 



but in any case it would be a mistake to suppose that for 
all the diflcrcnt sacrifices enumerated in the l^raliniana 
corresponding prayers exist in tlm Samldta. On llio con- 
trary, the latter probably only exhibits tlie verses to be 
chanted generally at all the Soma sacrifices; and the 
Brahmana must be regarded as the supplement in which 
the modifications for the separate sacrifices are given, and 
also for those which arose later. While, as we saw above 
(p. 14), a combination of verses of the Rik for the pur- 
pose of recitation bears the name iastra, a similar selec- 
tion of different sdmans united into a whole is usually 
called uktha ( V 'vach, to speak), stoma ( stu, to praise), or 
prishtha ( J prachh, to ask) ; and these in their turn, like 
the iastraSy receive different appellations.®^ 

Of special significance for the time of the composition 
of the Tandya Brahmana are, on the one hand, the very 
minute descriptions of tire sacrifices on the Sarasvati and 
Drishadvatf; and, on the other, the Vratyastomas, 01 
sacrifices by which Indians of Aryan origin, but not living 
according to the Brahmanical system, obtained admission 
to the Brahman community. The accounts of these latter 
sacrifices are preceded by a description of the dress and 
mode of life of those who are to offer them. “ They drive 
in open chariots of war, carry bows and lances, wear tur- 
bans, robes bordered with red and having fluttering ends, 
shoes, and sheepskins folded double; their leaders are 
distinguished by brown robes and silver neck-ornaments ; 
they pursue neither agriculture nor commerce ; their laws 
are in a constant state of confusion ; they speak the same 
language as those who have received Brahmanical conse- 
cration, but nevertheless call what is easily spoken hard 
to pronounce.” This last statement probably refers to 

The term directly opposed to The simple recitation of the sastras 
iattra ia, rather, gtotra, Pfishfha by the Holar and liis companions 
specially designates several stolras always comes after the chanting 
belonging to the mid-day sacrifice, recitation of ihe same verses by the 
and forming, as it is expressed, its Udgdtar and his assistants [ijruhdya 
“back;” uhtha is originally em- gfihitaya stuvale 'tha kinsati, 6at. 
ployed as a synonym of iastra, and viii. i. 3. 3). The differences of the 
Only at a later period in the mean* seven samsthds, or fundamental types 
ing of sdman ( 7 . St., xiii. 447); of the Soma sacrifice, rest mainly 
stoma, lastly, is the name for the six, upon the varying number of the 
seven, or more ground-forms of the iaslras and stotras belonging to their 
stotras, after which these latter are sutyd days. See /. St., x. 353, ff., 
formed for the purposes of chanting, ix. 229. 



prdkritic, dialectic differences; to the assimilation of groups 
of consonants, and similar changes peculiar to the Prdknt 
vernaculars. The great sacrifice of the Naimishiya-Rishis 
is also mentioned, and the river Suddman. Although we 
have to conclude from these statements that communica- 
tion with the west, particularly with the non-Brahmanic 
Aryans there, was still very active, and that therefore the 
locality of the composition must be laid more towards the 
west,®* still data are not wanting which point us to the 
east. Thus, there is mention of Para Atndra, king of the 
Kosalas ; of Trasadasyu Purukutsa, who is also named in 
the Rik-Samhita ; further of Namin Sdpy'a, king of the 
Videhas (the Nirni of the epic) ; of Kurukshetra, Yamund, 
&c. The absence, however, of any allusion in the Tdndya- 
Brahmana either to the Kuru-Panchalas or to the names 
of their princes, as well as of any mention of Janaka, is 
best accounted for by supposing a difference of locality. 
Another possible, though less likely, explanation of the 
fact would be to assume that this work was contemporary 
with, or even anterior to, the flourishing epoch of the 
kingdom of the Kuru-Panchalas. The other names quoted 
therein seem also to belong to an earlier age than those of 
the other Brdhmanas, and to be associated, rather, with the 
Rishi period. It is, moreover, a very significant fact that 
scarcely any differences of opinion are stated to exist 
amongst the various teachers. It is only against the 
Kaushitakis that the field is taken with some acrimony ; 
they are denoted as vrdtyas (apostates) and as yajndvahirna 
(unfit to sacrifice). Lastly, the name attached to this 
fo’dhraana,* viz., Tandya, is mentioned in the Brdhmana 
of tlie White Yajus as that of a teacher ; so that, com- 
bining all this, we may at least safely infer its priority to 
the latter work.®® 

^ The fact that the name of Chi- the other Sfitraa invariably quoting 
traratha {etena vai ChitraraihaTfi Kd- it by ‘ iti iruteh* 
peyd aydjayan . . . tasmdeh Chav- The Tiin^ya-Brdhma^a has been 

traratidudm ekah kshatrapatir jdyate edited, together with S^yana^s coin- 
^nulamba iva dvitlyah, xx, I2, 5) tnen^ry, in the .StW. /nd (1869-74), 
occurs in the gana 'Hdjadanta* to by Anaudtachandra VeddntavdgLia. 
Pan., ii. 2. 31, joined with the name At the time of the Bhdshika-Sutra 
Bdhlika in a compound (see Kielhorn, /. St,, x. 421) it must 

Bdhlikam\ is perhaps also to be still have been accentuate, and that 
taken in this connection. in the same manner as the ^ta- 

* The first use of this designation, patha ; in Kumdrilabhat^a's time, 
it is true, only occurs in Ld^ydyana, on the contrary (the last half of the 


The Sha4'i>i‘n^(i- BrdhmaTui by its very name proclaims 
itself a supplement to the Panchavin^a-Brahmana. It 
forms, as it were, its twenty-sixth book, although itself 
consisting of several books. Sayana, when giving a sum- 
mary of its contents at the commencement of his here 
excellent commentary, says that it both treats of such 
ceremonies as are not contained in the Panchavin^a-Brah- 
mana, and also gives points of divergence from the latter. 
It is chiefly expiatory sacrifices and ceremonies of impre- 
cation that we find in it, as also short, comprehensive 
general rules. The fifth book (or sixth adhydya) has 
quite a peculiar character of its own, and is also found as 
a separate Brahmana under the name of Adbhuta-Brdh- 
mana ; in the latter form, however, with some additions 
at the end. It enumerates untoward occurrences of daily 
life, omens and portents, along with the rites to be per- 
formed to avert their evil consequences. These afford us 
a deep insight into the condition of civilisation of the 
period, wliich, as might have been expected, exhibits a 
very advanced phase. The ceremonies first given are 
those to be observed on the occurrence of vexatious events 
generally ; then come those for cases of sickness among 
men and cattle, of damaged crops, losses of precious things, 
&c. ; those to be performed in the event of earthquakes, 
of phenomena in the air and in the heavens, &c., of mar- 
vellous appearances on altars and on the images of the 
gods, of electric phenomena and the like, and of mis- 
carriages.®** This sort of superstition is elsewliere only 
treated of in the Gnhya-Sdtras, or in the Pariiishtas (sup- 
plements) ; and this imparts to the last adhydya of the 
Shadviii^a-Brahmana — as the remaining contents do to 
the work generally — the appearance of belonging to a 
very modern period. And, in accordance with this, we 
find mention here made of Uddalaka Aruni, and other 
teachers, whose names are altogether unknown to the 
PanchaviiiiSa-Brdhraana. — A iloka is cited in the course of 

fioventh century, according to Bur- 
nell), it was already being banded 
down without accents, as in the pre- 
sent day. See Viiller, A, 8 . Z., p. 
348 ; Burnell, SdmaTidhdna-Brdh- 
apa, Preface, p. vi 

The Adbhuta-Bnlhniana lias 
been published by myself, text with 
translation, and explanatory notes, 

in Zwei vediseke Texte iiber Omina 
und ForUnia (1859X 



the work, in which the four yngoi are still designalied by 
their more ancient names, and are connected with the 
four lunar phases, to which they evidently owe their 
origin, although all recollection of the fact had in later 
times died out This iloka itself we are perhaps justified 
in assigning to an earlier time than that of Megasthenes, 
who informs us of a fabulous division of the mundane 
ages analogous to that given in the epic. But it does not 
by any means follow that the ShadviA^a-Brdhmana, in 
which the iloha is quoted, itself dates earlier than the 
time of Megasthenes, 

The third Brdhmana of the Sdmaveda bear’s the special 
title of Chhdndogya-Brdhma'm, although Chhdndogya is 
the common name for all Sdman theologians. We, how- 
ever, also find it quoted, by ^amkara, in his commentary 
on the Brahma- Sutra, as ^'Tdirdindin iruti” that is to say, 
under the same name that is given to the Panchavih^a- 
Brahmana. The two first adhydyas of this Brdhmana are 
still missing, and the last eight only are preserved, which 
also bear the special title of Ghhdndogyopanisfiad. This 
Brdhmana is particularly distinguished by its rich store 
of legends regarding the gradual development of Brah- 
manical theology, and stands on much the same level as 
the Vrihad-Aranyaka of the White Yajus with respect to 
opinions, as well as date, place, and the individuals men- 
tioned. The absence in the Vrihad-Aranyaka, as in the 
Brdhmana of the White Yajus generally, of any reference 
to the Naimi^iya-Rishis, might lead us to argue the pri- 
ority of the Chhdndogyopaiiishad to the Vrihad-Aranyaka. 
Still, the mention in the Chhdndogyopanishad of these, as 
well as of the Mahdvrishas and the Gandharas — the latter, 
it is true, are set down as distant — ought perhaps only to 
be taken as proof of a somewhat more western origin; 
whereas the Vrihad-Aranyaka belongs, as we shall here- 
after see, to quite the eastern part of Hindustan. The 
numerous animal fables, on the contrary, and the mention 
of Mahidada Aitareya, would “sooner incline me to suppose 
that the, Chhdndogyopanishad is more modern than the 
Vrihad-Aranyaka. With regard to another allusion, in 

Differently Roth iu Lis essay Die Lehrt von den vier Weltallern 
(Tubiugeii, iSfc). 



itself of the greatest significance, it is more hazardous to 
venture a conjecture : I mean the mention of Krishna 
DevaJdputra, who is instructed by Ghora Angirasa. The 
latter, and besides him (though not in connection with 
him) Krishna Aiigirasa, are also mentioned in the Kau- 
shltaJd-Brahmana ; and supposing this Krishna Aiigirasa 
to be identical with Krishna Devaklputra, the allusion to 
him might perhaps rather be considered as a sign of priority 
t^i tli^j Aranyaka. Still, assuming this identifica- 

tion to be correct, due weight must be given to the fact 
that the name has been altered here : instead of Aiigirasa, 
he is called Devakfputra, a form of name for which we 
find no analogy in any other Vedic writing excepting the 
Vafinas (genealogical tables) of the Vrihad- Aranyaka, and 
which therefore belongs, at all events, to a tolerably late 
period * The significance of this allusion for the under- 
standing of the position of Krishna at a later period is 
obvious. Here he is yet but a scholar, eager in the pur- 
suit of knowledge, belonging perhaps to the military caste. 
He certainly must have distinguished himself in some 
way or other, however little we know of it, otherwise his 
elevation to the rank of deity, brought about by external 
circumstances, would be inexplicable.®® 

The fact of the Chhandogyopanishad and the Vrihad- 
Aranyaka having in common the names Pravahana Jai- 
vali, Ushasti Chakrayana, ^lindilya, Satyakama jiibala, 
Uddalaka Aruni, ^vetaketu, and A^vapati, makes it clear 
that they were as nearly as possible contemporary works ; 
and this appears also from the generally complete identity 
of the seventh book of the former with the corresponding 
passages of the Vrihad- Aranyaka. What, however, is ol 
most significance, as tending to establish a late date for 

* Coinp.ire also Pdn., iv. i. 159, 
and the names 6ainbiiputrti, Itdnd- 
yanlputra, in the ydma-Sutras ; as 
also Kdty dyaniputra, Mai tiilyani- 
putra, Vdtsiputra, &c., among the 
Buddhists. [On these metronymic 
names in jiutra see /. Bt,, iii. 157, 

380 . 435 ; V. 63, 64. ] 
By what circumstances the ele- 
vation of Krishina to the rank of 
deity was brought about is as yet 
obscure ; though unquestiouably 

mythical relations to Indra, &c., are 
at tho root of it; sec /. Bi,, xiii. 
349 j ff. The whole question, how- 
ever, is altogether viigue. Krishna- 
worship proper, i.c., the sectarian 
worship of Krishna as the one God, 
probably attained its perfection 
tlirough the iirfluence of Christi- 
anity, See my paper, Krishna's 
GeburtsfiSt^ p. 316, If, (where also 
are further particulars as to the name 



the Chhdndogyopanishad, is the voluminous literature, the 
existence of which is presupposed by the enumeration at 
the beginning of the ninth book. Even supposing this 
ninth book to be a sort of supplement (the names of Sanat- 
kumdra and Skanda are not found elsewhere in Vedic 
literature; Ndrada also is otherwise only mentioned in 
the second part of the Aitareya-Brdhmana *®), there stiU 
remains the mention of the ‘ Atharvdflgirasas,' as well as of 
the Itihdsas and Purdnas in the fifth book. Though we 
are not at liberty here, any more than in the correspond- 
ing passages of the Vrihad-Aranyaka, to understand by 
these last the Itihasas and Puranas which have actually 
come down to us, still we must look upon them as the 
forerunners of these works, which, originating in the 
legends and traditions connected with the songs of the 
Rik, and with the forms of worship, gradually extended 
their range, and embraced other subjects also, whether 
drawn from real life, or of a mythical and legendary 
character. Originally they found a place in the Brdh- 
manas, as well as in the other expository literature of the 
Vedas; but at the time of this passage of the Chhan- 
dogyopanishad they had possibly already in part attained 
an independent form, although the commentaries,* as a 
rule, on%- refer such expressions to passages in the Brah- 
manas themselves. The Maha-Bharata contains, especially 
in the first book, a few such Itihdsas, still in a prose form ; 
nevertheless, even these fragments so preserved to us be- 
long, in respect both of style and of the conceptions they 
embody, to a much later period than the similar passages 
of the Brahmanas. They however suffice, together with 
the SloJcas, gdthds, &c., quoted in the Brahmanas them- 
selves, and with such works as the Barhaddaivata, to 
bridge over for us the period of transition from legend to 
epic poetry. 

We meet, moreover, in the Chhdndogyopanishad with 
one of those legal cases "which are so seldom mentioned in 
Vedic literature, viz., the infliction of capital punishment 
for (denied) theft, exactly corresponding to the severe 

And a few times in the Atharva- case^ but Sdya^a, Harisvdmin, and 
Sambitd, as also in the Vanaa of the Dvivedagaii;^a iu similar passages of 
SfCmavidhiliia-Bniljina^a. the Satapatiia-Brdhmai^a and Tait- 

* Not ^aipkara^ it is true, in this tiriya-Arai^yaka. 



enactments regarding it in Mann’s code. Guilt or inno- 
cence is determined by an ordeal, the carrying of a red- 
hot axe ; this also is analogous to the decrees in Manu. 
We find yet another connecting link with the state of 
culture in Manu’s time in a passage occurring also in the 
Vrihad-Aranyaka, viz., the doctrine of the transmigration 
of souls. We here meet with this doctrine for the first 
time, and that in a tolerably complete form; in itself, 
however, it must certainly be regarded as much more 
ancient. The circumstance that the myth of the creation 
in the fifth book is on the whole identical with that found 
at the beginning of Manu, is perhaps to be explained by 
regarding the latter as simply a direct imitation of the 
former. The tenth book, the subject of which is the soul, 
its seat in the body and its condition on leaving it, i.e., its 
migration to the realm of Brahman, contains much that is 
of interest in this respect in connection with the above- 
mentioned parallel passage of the Kaushitaky-Upanishad, 
from which it differs in some particulars. Here also for 
the first time in the field of Vedic literature occurs the 
name Eahu, which we may reckon among the proofs of 
the comparatively recent date of the Chhandogyopanishad. 

Of expressions for philosophical doctrines we find only 
Upanishad, Adeda, Chihya Adesa (the keeping secret of doc- 
trine is repeatedly and urgently inculcated), Updkhydna 
(explanation . The teacher is called dchdrya [as he is 
also in the Sat. Br.]; for "inhabited place,” ardha is used; 
single ilokas and gdthds are very often quoted. 

The Chhandogyopanishad has been edited by Dr. Eoer 
in the Bihlioth^ Indica, vol. iii., along "with ^amkara’s 
commentary and a gloss on it.™ Fr. Windischmann had 
previously given us several passages of it in the original, 
and several in translation ; see also I. St., i. 254-273. 

The Kenopanishad has come down to us as the rem- 
nant of a fourth Brahmana of the Samaveda, supposed to 
be its ninth book.*" In the colophons and in the quota- 
tions found in the commentaries, it also bears the other- 

^ lu this series (1854-62) a trans- first eight books, Sarpkara furnishen 
lation also has been published by us with inforinatiuii in the begin* 
Bdjendra Ldla Mitra. ning of his commentary, 

* Regarding the contents of the 



wise unknown name of the TaXavaTedras.* It is divided 
into two parts : the first, composed in ibicas, treats ojf the 
being of the supreme Brahman, appealing in the fourth 
verse to the tradition of the “ earlier sages who have 
taught us this” as its authority. The second part con- 
tains a legend in support of the supremacy of Brahman, 
and here we find Urod Haimavati, later the spouse of l^iva, 
acting as mediatrix between Brahman and the other gods, 
probably because she is imagined to be identical with 

Sarasvati, or Vdch, the goddess of speech, of the creative 

^ These are the extant Brahmanas of the Samaveda. 
Sayana, indeed, in his commentary on the Samavidhdna 
enumerates eight (see Muller, Rik i. Pref. p. xxvii) : the 
Praudha- or Mahd- Erdlimaim {i.e., the PancJiaviMa) , the 
Shudvinsa,i\\e Sdmavidhi, the Arslieya, the Devatddhydya, 
the Upanishad, the Samhitopanishad , and the Vania. 
The claims, however, of four of these works to the name of 
Brahmana, have no solid foundation. The Arsheya is, as 
already stated, merely an Anukramani, and the -Devata- 
dhyaya can hardly be said to be anything else ; the VahiSa 
elsewhere always constitutes a part of the Brahmanas 
themselves : the two latter works, moreover, can scarcely 
be supposed to be still in existence, which, as far as the 
Vah^a is concerned, is certainly very much to be regretted. 
The Samavidhana also, which probably treats, like the 
portion of the Latyayana-Sdtra bearing the same name, of 
the conversion of the richas into sdmans, can hardly pass 

a. a* ^ ^ As to llie S.nnhitopanishad, it appears 

* Might Dot this name be trace- an Anukramani, but only contains 
able to the-same root fd(/, from' some information as to the deities 
which Tiindya is derived ? of the different sdmans, to which a 

t On tlie literature, &c., of the few other short fragir.eiits are added 
Kenopanishad, see I, ii, l8x, ff. Finally, the Siimavidhitna - Brdh- 
[ \\ e have to add lloer’s edition with inana does not treat of the conver- 
baipkara s commentary, in sion of fichas into sdmans; on the 

theca Indica, vol. viii., and histrans- contrary, it is a work similar to the 
lation, vol. xv,] Rigvidhdna, and relates to the em- 

The above statements require ploymeiit of the sdmans for all sort? 
to bo corrcctoil and supplemented of superstitious imrjioses. Both 
in several particulars. The Vahsa- texts have likewise been edited by 
Brahmana was first edited by inyseif Burnell, with Sdyana’s commentaries 
in L St,, IV. 371, ff,, afterwards by (1873). By Kumdrila, too, the num- 
Buriifll with bayana’s commentary ber of the Brdhma^ias of the Sama- 
(1873). The DevaU'ulhydya is not veda is given as eight (Muller 



to me doubtful whether Sayana meant by it the Keiio- 
panishad; for though tlie samMtd (universality) of the 
Supreme Being certainly is discussed in the latter, the sub' 
ject is not handled under this name, as would seem to be 
demanded by the analogy of the title of the Samhitopa- 
nishad of the Aitareya-Aranyaka as well as of the Taittin'ya- 
Aranyaka. My conjecture would be that he is far more 
likely to have intended a work^^ of the same title, of which 
there is a MS. in the British Museum (see I. St., i. 42) ; and 
if so, all mention of the Kenopanishad has been omitted by 
him ; possibly for the reason that it appears at the same 
time in an Atharvan-recension (differing but little, it is 
true), and may have been regarded by him as belonging to 
the Atharvan ? 

There is a far greater number of Sdiras to the Sdma- 
veda than to any of the other Vedas. We have here three 
^rauta-Siitras ; a Siitra which forms a running commen- 
tary upon the Panchavinia-Brahmana ; five Sutras on 
Metres and on the conversion of richas into sdmans ; and 
a Grihya-Siitra. To these must further be added other 
similar works of which the titles only are known to us, as 
well as a great mass of different Pariiishtas. 

Of the Srauta-Sutms, or Sutras treating of the sacrifi- 
cial ritual, the first is that of Maiaha, which is cited in 
the other Sama-Sutras, and even by the teachers men- 
tioned in these, sometimes as Arsheya-Kalpa, sometimes 
as Kalpa, and once also by Latyayana directly under the 
name of Ma^aka.^^ In the colophons it bears the name of 
Kalpa-Sdtra. This Siitra is but a tabular enumeration of 
the prayers belonging to the several ceremonies of the 
Soma sacrifice ; and these are quoted partly by their tech- 
nical Saman names, partly by their opening words. The 

L,y p. 348); in his time all of since this text appears there, as well 
them were already without accents, as elsewhere, in connection with the 
One fact deserves to be specially Vansa - Brdhinana, &c. It is not 
noticed here, namely, that several much larger than the Devatddhydya, 
of the teachers mentioned in the but has not yet been published ; see 
VaAsa-Brdhmana, by their very /. iv. 375. 
names, point us directly to the north- Ldtydyana designates Masaka aa 

west of India, Kdmboja Au- Gdrjiya. Is this name connected 
pamanyava, Madragitra ^auugdyaui, with the Mdircraya of the Greeks? 
Sdti Aush^rdkshi, Sdlarpkilyana, and Lassen, L i, 130; /. St,, iv 

Kauhala ; see L Stf iv. 378-380. 78. 

This is unquestionably correct, 



order is exactly that of the PafichavifuSa-Brdhmana ; yet a 
few other ceremonies are inserted, including those added 
in the Shadvifiia-Brahmana, as well as others. Among 
the latter the Janahasaptardtra deserves special notice, 
— a ceremony owing its origin to King Janaka,^* of 
whom, as we saw above, no mention is yet made in the 
PanchavifiiSa-Brahmana. His life and notoriety therefore 
evidently fall in the interval between the latter work 
and the Siitra of Ma^aka. — The eleven prapdthakas of this 
Siitra are so distributed that the elcdhas (sacrifices of one 
day) are dealt with in the first five chapters ; the ahinas 
(those lasting several days) in the following four ; and the 
sattras (sacrifices lasting more than twelve days) in the 
last two. There is a commentary on it, composed by 
Varadaraja, whom we shall meet with again as the com- 
mentator of another Sama-Sdtra. 

The second ^rauta-Siitra is that of Ldfi/dyana, which 
belongs to the school of the Kauthumas. This name ap- 
pears to me to point to Ldta, the AapiKi] of Ptolemy,^® to 
a country therefore lying quite in the west, directly south 
of Surdshtra {'Svpaarfyqvi^. This would agree perfectly 
with the conjecture above stated, that the Panchavih^a- 
Brahmana belongs more to the west of India ; and is borne 

out by the data contained in the body of the Siitra itself, 
as we shall see presently. 

This Siitra, like that of Ma^aka, connects itself closely 
with the Panchavin^a-Brahmana, and indeed often quotes 
passages of some length from it, generally introducing 
them by “lad uktam hrdhmanena or, “iti h'dhmanam hhav- 
ah ; once also by “ tathd purdnam Tdndam.” It usually 
gives at the same time the different interpretations which 
these passages received from various teachers. Sandilya, 
Dhanamjayya, and ^andilyayana are most frequently 
mentioned in this manner, often together, or one after the 
other, as expounders of the Panchavifi^a-Brahmana. The 
first-named is already known to us through the Chhdndo- 
gyopanishad, and he, as well as ^andilyayana, is repeatedly 


Siiyana, it is true, to Pafich. Ldtika as early as the edicts of 
xxii, 9. I, takes ^ctjiaia as an ap- Piyadasi ; see Lassen, 7 , i. 108; 
peliative in the sense of ^ajdpcUi^ ii. 793 n, ’ 

which is the reading of the Pahcha- 



mentioned also in another SiHra, the Niddna-Sdtra; the 
same is the case with Dhaiiamjayya. Besides these, how- 
ever, Latyayana mentions a number of other teachers and 
scliools, as, for example, his own dcJidryas, with especial 
frequency; the Arsheya-Kalpa, two different Gautamas, 
one being distinguished by the surname Sthavira (a tech- 
nical title, especially with the Buddhists) ; further ^auchi- 
vrikshi (a teacher known to Panini), Kshairakalambhi, 
Kautsa, Varshaganya, Bhanditayana, Lamakayana, Eana- 
yaniputra, &c. ; and in particular, the ^atyayanins, and 
their work, the Sdtydyanaka, together with the ^alafikd- 
yanins, the latter of whom are well known to belong to 
the western part of India. Such allusions occur in the 
Siitra of Latyayana, as in the other Sdtras of the Sdma- 


other Vedas, and are in my opinion evidence of their 
priority to the latter. At the time of the former there 
still existed manifold differences of opinion, while in that 
of the latter a greater unity and fixedness of exegesis, of 


The remaining 

data appear also to point to such a priority, unless we 
have to explain them merely from tlie difference of loca- 



das, i.e., the Indian aborigines, does not here appear to be 
one of such oppression and wretchedness as it afterwards 
became. It was permitted to sojourn with them (Sandi- 



allowed to attend in person at the ceremonies, although 
outside of the sacrifici^ ground. They are, moreover, now 
and then represented, though for the most part in a mean 
capacity, as taking an actual part on such occasions, which 
is not to be thought of in later times. Toleration was 
still a matter of necessity, for, as we likewise see, the 


among the neighbouring Aryan tribes. These, equally 
with the Brahmanical Indians, held in high esteem the 
songs and customs of their ancestors, and devoted to them 
quite as much study as the Brahmanical Indians did ; nay, 
the latter now and then directly resorted to the former, 
and borrowed distinct ceremonies from them. This iy 

sufficiently clear from the particulars of one ceremony of the 



kind, which is embodied, not indeed in the Panchavih^a- 
Brahmana, hut in the Shadvin^a-Brahmana, and which is 
described at full length by Latydyana. It is an imprecatory 
ceremony (called iyena, falcon); and this naturally sug- 
gests the idea that the ceremonial of the Atharvan, which 
is essentially based upon imprecations and magical expe- 
dients, — as well as the songs of the Atharvan itself, — ^may 
perhaps chiefly owe its cultivation to these western, non- 
Brahmanical, Aryan tribes. The general name given to 
these tribes by Latydyana (and with this Pdnini v. 2. 2 1 
agrees) is Vratlnas, and he further draws a distinction 
between their yaudhas, warriors, and their arhants, 
teachers. Their aniXchdrias, i.e., those versed in Scripture, 
are to be chosen priests for the above-mentioned sacrifice, 
^andilya limits this to the arhants alone, which latter 
word — subsequently, as is well known, employed exclu- 
sively as a Buddhistic title — is also used in the Brahmana 
of the White Yajus, and in the Aranyaka of the Black 
Yajus, to express a teacher in general. The turban and 
garments of these priests should be red {lohita) according 
to Shadvifila and Latydyana ; and we find the same colour 
assigned to the sacrificial robes of the priests of the Ed- 
kshasas in Lankd, in the Edmdyana, vi. 19. no, 51. 21 ; 
with which may be compared the light red, yellowish red 
(kashdya) garments of the Buddhists (see for instance 
Mrichhakat., pp. 112, 114, ed. Stenzler; M.-Bhdr., xii. 566, 
11898; Ydjnav., i. 272), and the red {rakta) dress of the 
Sdmkhyabhikshu * in the Laghujdtaka of Vardha-Mihira. 
Now, that these western non-Brahmanical Vrdtyas, Vrdti- 
nas, were put precisely upon a par with the eastern non- 
Brahmanical, i.e., Buddhistic, teachers, appears from an 
addition which is given by Latydyana to the description 
of the Vrdtyastomas as found in the Panchavih^a- Hrdh- 
mana. We are there told that the converted Vrdtyas, i.e., 
those who have entered into the Brahman community, 
must, in order to cut off all connection with their past, 
hand over their wealth to those of their companions who 
still qj)ide by the old mode of life — thereby transferring to 
these their own former impurity — or else, to a “ Brahma- 

* According to the commentary; or should this bo iSdkyabhikihu t 
See I. St., ii. 287. 


bandhu Magadhade^fya.” This latter expression is only 
explicable if we assume that Buddliism, with its anti- 
Brahmanical tendencies, was at the time flourishing in 

Magadha; and the absence of any such allusion in the 
Panchavin^a-Brahmana is significant as to the time which 
elapsed between this work and the Sutra of Latyayana.* 
The first seven prapd^hakas of the Latyayana-Siitra 
comprise the rules common to all Soma sacrifices ; the 
eighth and part of the ninth book treat, on the contrary, 
of the separate ekdhas ; the remainder of the ninth book, 
of the ahinas; and the tenth, of the sattras. We have 

an excellent commentary on it by Agnisvamin,^® who be- 

longs probably to the same period as the other commen- 
tators whose names terminate in svdmin, as Bhavasvamin, 

Bharatasvamin, Dhilrtasvamin, Harisvdmin, Khadirasva- 

min, Meghasvamin, Skandasvdmin, Kshi'rasvamin, &c. ; 
their time, however, is as yet undetermined.'^^ 

The third Sama-Siitra, that of Drdhydyana, differs but 
slightly from the Latyayana-Sdtra. It belongs to the 
school of the Ranayainyas. We meet with the name of 
these latter in the Eanayanfputra of Latyayana; liis 
family is descended from Vasishtha, for which reason this 
Sutra is also directly called Vdsishtha-Sutra. For the 
name Drahyayana nothing analogous can be adduced.’'® 
The difference between this Sdtra and that of Latyayana 

♦ In the Rik-Snrphitd, where the bitant^ regarding it as a means of 
Kikatas— the ancient name of the reettvering tiieir old position though 
people of Magadlia — and tlieir king under a new form. 

Pramagaipda are mentioned as hos- We now possesa in the Bibl, 

tile, we have probably to think of Indita (1870-72) an edition of the 
the aborigines, of the country, and Ldtydyana-^Shtra, with Agnisvilmin’s 
not of hostile Aryiis (?). It seeins not commentary, by Ainiudacliandra 
impossible that the native iubabi- Vedilntavdgi^a. 

tants, being particularly vigorous, ^ We find quite a cluster of Brah- 
retiiined more influence in Magadha man names in •svdmin in an inscrip- 
thau elsewhere, even after the conn- tion dated Sitka 627 in Journal lloni- 
try had been brahmanised, — a pro- bay Branch R* A, S.y iii. 208 (1851), 
cess which perhaps was never com- ami in an undated inscription in 
pletely effected; — that they joined Journal Am, Or. &c., vi. 589. 
the community of the Brahmans as It first occurs in the Vahsa- 

Kshatriyas, as happened elsewhere Brahinana, whose first list of teach- 
also ; and that this is how we have era probably refers to this very 
to account for the special sympathy school ; see L St., iv. 378 : draha 
and success which Buddhism met is said to be a Prdkpit corruption of 
with in Magadha, these native iuha- hrada ; see Hem. Pidkr., ii. 80, 120. 



is mainly confined to the difierent distribution of the 
matter, which is on the whole identical, and even ex- 
pressed in the same words. I have not yet met with a 
complete codex of the whole work, but only with its begin- 
ning and its end, in two different commentaries, the date 
of which it is not yet possible to determine — the begin- 
ning, namely, in Maghasvdmin’s commentary, remodelled 
by Eudraskanda ; the end in the excellent commentary of 

The. only knowledge I have of a ^rauta-Siitra by Go- 
bhila is derived from a notice of Eoth’s {ap. c., pp. 55, 56), 
according to which Krityachintdmani is said to have com- 
posed a commentary upon it.^ 

In a far more important degree than he differs from 
Drahyayana does Ldtydyana differ, on the one hand, from 
Katyayana, who in his ^rauta-Siitra, belonging to the 
White Yajus, treats in books 22-24 of the ekdhaSy ahimts, 
and sattras ; and on the other, from the Rik-Siitras of 
iivaldyana and ^ankhdyana, which likewise deal with 
these subjects in their proper place. In these there is no 
longer any question of differences of opinion ; the stricter 
view* represented by ^dn^ilya in the Latyayana-Siitra has 
everywhere triumphed. The ceremonies on the Sarasvatf 
and the Vrdtyastomas have also become, in a local sense 
too, further removed from actual life, as appears both from 
the slight consideration with which they are treated, and 
from modifications of names, &c., which show a forgetting 
of the original form. Many of the ceremonies discussed 
in thO Sama-Siitras are, moreover, entirely wanting in the 
Sutras of the other Vedas ; and those which are found in 
the latter are enumerated in tabular fashion rather than 
fully discussed — a difference which naturally originated 
in the diversity of purpose, the subject of the Siitra of the 
Yajus being the duties of the Adhvaryu, and that of the 
Sutras of the Rik the duties of the Hotar. 

A fourth Sama-Siitra is the Anupada-SIitra, in ten 
prapdthakas, the work of an unknown author. It explains 

The name ‘ Krityachintdmani ’ on a ^raiita-Sutra of Gobhila re- 
probably belongs to the work itself ; mains doubtful in the meantime, 
compare /. St., i. 6o, ii. 396 ; Auf- since such a work is not mentioned 
recht, Catalogus, p. 365* ; but elsewhere, 
whether it really was a commentary 


the obscure passages of the PancliaviA^a-Brahmana, and, 
it would appear, of the Shadvin^a-Brahmana also, accom-’ 
panying the text step by step. It has not as yet been 
closely examined ; but it promises to prove a rich mine of 
material for the history of Brahmanical theology, as it 
makes mention of, and appeals to, an extremely large 
number of (Afferent works. For example, of schools of 
tlie Rik, it cites the Aitareyins, the Paingins, the Kaushf- 
taka ; of schools ot the Yajus, the Adlivaryus in gene- 
ral; farther, tlie Satyayanins, Khadayanins, the Tafttin'- 
yas, the Kathaka, the Ivalabavins, Bhallavins, Sambuvis, 
Vajasaneyins; and frequently also Mi, smriti, dchdryas, 
&c. It is a work wliich deserves to be very thorouahlv ^ ® 


Brahman a 

- the Sutras now to be mentioned stand out more indepen- 
dently beside the latter, although of course, in part at 
least, often referring to it. In the first place, we have to 
mention the Niddna-Siiitra, which contains in ten pra- 
pdtlicikas metrical and other similar investigations on the 

ihe name of the 
The word niddna, ‘ root,' is used 


is not given. 

with reference to metre in the Brahinana of the White 
Yajus and though in the two instances where the 

Naidanas are mentioned by Yaska, their activity appears 
to have been directed less to the study of metre than to 
that of roots, etymology, still the Nidanasarnjnaka Grantha 
IS found cited in the llrihaddevata, 5 . 5» cither directly as 
the Sruti of the Chhandogas, or at least as containing 
their Sruti.* This Sutra is especially remarkable for the 
great number of V edic schools and teachers whose various 
opinions it adduces ; and in this respect it stands on pretty 
much the same level as the Anupada-Siitra. It differs 
irom It, however, by its particularly frequent quotation 

•* Unfortunately we do not even 

now know of more than one MS • 
see I. St., i. 43. ‘ ’ 

This is wrong; on the con- 
trary, the word has quite a general 
meaning in tlie pa8s<iges in question 

in ffdyatri vd eahd 7 ii(ldn€na, 

or yo vd atrd *gnir gdyairi sa nidd^ 

* Nuldna^ in the sense of ' cause, 
foundation/ is a favourite word in 
the Buddhistic Sdtras ; see Burnouf, 
Jntrod. d V Hi$toire du BuddhitM4 

Indien, pp. 59, ff., 484, flf. 



also of the views of the Sdman theologians named by LtUy:l- 
yana and Drahyayana, viz., Dhanamj ay y a, Sandilya, Sau- 
chivrikshi, &c, — a thing which seldom or never occurs 
in the former. The animosity to the Kaushitakis, with 
which we have already become acquainted in the Pancha- 
vifi^a-Brahmana, is here again exhibited most vividly in 
some words attributed to Dhanamj^yya. With regard to 
the Rigveda, the daiatayi division into ten mavdalas is 
mentioned, as in Ydska. The allusion to the Atharva- 
nikas, as well as to the Anubrahmanins, is particularly to 
be remarked ; the latter peculiar name is not met with 
elsewhere, except in Pdnini. A special study of this 
Siitra is also much to be desired, as it likewise promises 
to open up a wealth of information regarding the condi- 
tion of literature at that period.®^ 

Not much information of this sort is to be expected 
from the Fushpa-S'dtra of Gobhila,* which has to be 
named along with the Niddna-Sdtra. The understanding 
of this Sdtra is, moreover, obstructed by many difficulties. 
For not only. does it cite the technical names of the 
sdmam, as well as other words, in a very curtailed form, 
it also makes use of a number of grammatical and other 
technical terms, which, although often agreeing with the 
corresponding ones in the Prdti^dkhya-Siitras, are yet also 
often formed in quite a peculiar fashion, here and there, 
indeed, quite after the algebraic type so favoured by 
Pdnini. This is particularly the case in the first four 
prapdthakas ; and it is precisely for these that, up to the 
present time at least, no commentary has been found; 
whereas for the remaining six we possess a very goo(l 
commentary by Upadhyaya Ajdta^atru.f The work 
treats of the modes in which the separate richas, by various 
insertions, &c., are transformed into sdmans, or “ made to 
blossom,” as it were, which is evidently the origin of the 
name Pushpa-Sdtra, or “ Flo wer- Siitra.” In addition to 

See /. Sf.,y i. 44, ff. ; the first * So, iit least, the author is called 
two pafalaa, which have special re- in the colophons of two chapters in 
ference to metre, have been edited MS. Cliainbcrs 220 [Catalogue of 
and translated by me in /. viii. the Berlin MSS., p. 76]. 

85-124. For Anubrdhma^in, + Composed for his pupil, Vish- 

see also iiv. ^r., ii. 8. Ii, and SchoL \iuya 5 aa. 
on T. S., i. 8. I. I. 


the I‘ravachana, i.e. (according to the comnKnitary), Brah- 
mana, of the Kalabavins and that of the ^atyayaniiis, I 
found, on a cursory inspection, mention also of the Xau- 
tliiinuis. This is the first time that their name appears in 
a work connected with Vedic literature. Some portions 
of the work, [)avticularly in the last books, are composed 
in 4lokas, and we have, doubtless, to regard it as a com- 
pilation of pieces belonging to different periods.®^ In close 
connection with it stands the Sdma-Tantra, composed in 
the same manner, and equally unintelligible without a 
commentary. It treats, in thirteen prapdihakas, of accent 
and the accentuation of the separate verses. A commen- 
tary on it is indeed extant, but at present only in a frag- 
mentary form. At its close the work is denoted as the 
vydkarana, grammar, of the Saman theologians.®* 

Several other Sutras also treat of the conversion of 
richas into sdmans, &c. One of these, the PaficliavidM- 
S'dtra {Fdnchavidkya, Pailchavidheya), is only known to 
me from quotations, according to which, as well as from 
its name, it treats of the five different vidhis (modes) by 
which this process is effected. Upon a second, the Prati- 
hdra-Sdtra, which is ascribed to Katyayana, a commentary 
called Daiatayi was composed by Varadaraja, the above- 
mencioiied commentator of Ma^aka. It treats of the 
aforesaid five vidhis, with particular regard to the one 
called pratihdra. The Tanddlakshana - Sdtra is only 
known to me by name, as also the Upayrantlm-Sutra,*^ 
both of which, with the two other works just named, are, 
according to the catalogue, found in the Fort-William 

In Dekhan MSS. the work i.s 
called P/iuZ/a-Sutra, and is ascribed 
to ■ Vararuchi, not to Gobhila; see 
Burnell, Catalogue, pp. 45, 46. 0 *i 

ibis and other points of difference, 
866 my paper, Ueber das ^aptasata^ 
kam des Ildla (1870), pp. 258, 259. 

I*now possess a copy of the text and 
commentary, but have nothing of 
consequence to add to the above re- 

See also Burnell, Catalogue, 
pp. 4c, 41.— /6£d , p, 44, we find a 
‘Svaraparibhilshd, or Sdnialakshana,* 
flpecifieil. Kaiyata also mentions a 
^ $d/nuUakdiaT^am prdti^kkyairi 

tram,* by which he explains the 

word ulcthdrtha, which, according to 

the Mahdbhtlshya, is at the fouau.i- 

tion of axththika, whoso formation is 

taught by Piinini himself (iv. 2. 60); 

see /, kSL, xiii. 447. According to 

this it certainly seems very doubtful 

whether the Saiaalakshana men- 


tinned by Kaiyata is to be identified 
with the extant work bearing the 
same name. 

* Sha^gurusishya, in the intro- 
duction to his commentary ou tlio 
Anukramani of the Rik, describes 

« • 7 

Kdtydyana as ' upagranlhasya kd- 




collection of MSS. By the anonymous transcriber of the 
Berlin MS. of the Ma^aka-Siitra, who is of course a very 
weak authority, ten ^rauta-Sutras for the Samaveda are 
enumerated at the close of the MS., viz., besides Latyayana, 
Anupada, Nidana, Kalpa, Tandalakshana, Panchavidheya, 
and the Upagranthas, also the Kalpdnupada, Anustotra, 
and the Kshiidras. What is to be understood by the three 
last names must for the present remain undecided.®® 

The Grihya-S'dtra of the Samaveda belongs to Gohhila, 
the same to whom we also found a ^rauta-Sutra and the 
Pnshpa-Siitra ascribed.®® His name has a very unvedic 
ring, and nothing in any way coresponding to it appears 
in the rest of Vedic literature.®'^ In what relation this 
work, drawn up in four 'prapdllmlcas, stands to the Grihya- 
Siitras of the remaining Vedas has not yet been investi- 
gated.®® A supplement {parUishta) to it is the Karma- 
fradipa of Katyayana. In its introductory words it ex- 
pressly acknowledges itself to be such a supplement to 
Gobhila ; but it has also been regarded both as a second 
Grihya-Siitra and as a Smriti-^astra. According to the 

• V > • O 

statement of A^arka, the commentator of this Karma- 
pradi'pa, the Grihya-Sutra of Gobhila is authoritative for 
both the schools of the Samaveda, the Kauthumas as well 
as the Bandy anfyas.* — Is the Khddira-Grihya, which is 
now and then mentioned, also to be classed with the 
Samaveda ? ®® 

On the I’jifichavidhi-Si'itra and drakdnta Tarkidaiiikdra, has been 
the Kalplnupada, eacli in two pm- commenced in tiie Bihl. Indica 
j)dthakm^ and the Kaliuudra, in (1871); the fourth /(w/cu^ws (1873) 
three prapdthalca^^ sec Miiller, A. S, reaches to ii. 8. 12. See the sections 
i/., p. 210; Aufrecht, Catalo^us, p. relating to niiptial ceremonies in 
377*^. 'J'lic Upagrautha-Sdtra treats Haas’s paper, /. >8?., v. 283, ff. 
of expiations, py'dyahhittas, see ltd- * Among the authors of the 
jendra L, M., Notices of Sanskrit Smpiti-^jlstrfis a Kuthiimi is also 
MSS.j ii, 182, mentioned. 

To him is also ascribed a Nai- Certainly. In Burnell’s Cata- 

geya-Sutra, ‘‘a description of the Zo^«c, p. 56, the Drdhyilya^a-Grihya- 
Motres of the Sdmaveda,” see Colin Si'itra (in four 7>a/a^aa) is at.tributed 
Browning, Catalogue of Smskrit to Khddira. llndraskandasviltnin 
MSS, existing ia Onde (1873), P* 4 - cotnposed a vpitti on this work 

A list of teachers belonging to also (see p. 80); and Viunaiia is 
the Gobhila school is contained in named as the author of ^kdrikds to 
the Vansa-Brahmapa. the Grihya-Sutras of Khddira,’ Bur- 

An edition of the Gobhila- nell, p. 57, To the Gfihya-Sutras 
Grihya-Sutra, with a very diffuse of the Sdraaveda probably belong 
commentary by the editor, Chau- also Gautama’s Pitfimcdha-SHtra 


As representative of the last stage of the literature of 
the Siimaveda, vve may specify, on the one hand, the 
various Paddhatis (outlines) and commentaries, &c., which 
connect themselves with the Siitras, and serve as an ex- 
planation and further development of them ; and, on the 
other, that peculiar class of short treatises beariiij^ the 
name of PariHshtas, which are of a somewhat more inde- 
pendent character than the former, and are to be looked 
upon more as supplements to the Sutras * Among these, 
the already mentioned Arslui and Daivata — enumerations 
of the Rishis and deities — of the Samhita in the Naigeya- 
^likha deserve prominent notice. Both of these treatises 
refer throughout to a comparatively ancient tradition; 
for example, to the Nairuktas, headed by Yaska and 6dka- 
piini, to the Naighantukas, to ^aunaka (i.e., probably to 
his Anukramani of the Rik), to their own Brahmana, to 
Aitareya and the Aitareyins, to the Satapathikas, to the 
Pravachana Kathaka, and to A^valayana. The Ddlhhya- 
Parisishta ought probably also to be mentioned here ; it 
bears the name of an individual who appears several times 
in the Chhandogyopanisliad, but pnrtieularly often in the 
Puruiias, as one of the sages who conduct the dialogue. 

The Yajurveda, to which we now turn, is distinguished 
above the other Vedas by the great number of different 
schools which belong to it. This is at once a consequence 
and a proof of the fact that it became pre-eminently the 
subject of study, inasmuch as it contains the formulas for 
the entire sacrificial ceremonial, and indeed forms its 

(cf. Burnell, p. 57 ; the commenta- 
tor Anantayajvan ide.ntifies the au- 
thor with Aksliapida, the author of 
the Nydya Sdtra), and the Qautama^ 
Dharma-Sutra ; see the section treat- 

the legal literature. 
lUmokfish^a, in his coniiD^n- 

tary on the Grihya-Sdtra of the 
White Yajus, several times ascribes 
their autliorship to a Kdtydyana 
(India Office Library, No, 440, fol. 
52% 56ft, 58*, &c.); or do these quo- 
tations only refer to the above* 
name<l Karmanradlpa? 



proper foundation; whilst the Rigveda prominently, and 
the Samaveda exclusively, devote themselves to a part of 
it only, viz., to the Soma sacrifice. The Yajurveda divides 
itself, in the first place, into two parts, the Black and the 
White Yajus. These, upon the whole, indeed, have their 
matter in common ; hut they differ fundamentally from 
each other as regards its arrangement. In the Samhita of 
the Black Yajus the sacrificial formulas are for the most 
part immediately followed by their dogmatic explanation, 
&c., and by an account of the ceremonial belonging to 
them ; the portion bearing the name of Brahmana (fiffering 
only in point of time from this Samhita, to which it must 
be viewed as a supplement. In the White Yajus, on the 
contrary, the sacrificial formulas, and their explanation 
and ritual, are entirely separated from one another, the 
first being assigned to the Samhita, and their explanation 
and ritual to the Brahmana, as is also the case in the Rig- 
veda and the Samaveda. A further difference apparently 
consists in the fact that in the Black Yajus very great 
attention is paid to the Hotar and his duties, which in the 
White Yajus is of rare occurrence. By the nature of the 
case in such matters, what is undigested is to be regarded as 
the commencement, as the earlier stage, and what exhibits 
method as the later stage ; and this view will be found to 
be correct in the present instance. As each Yajus pos- 
sesses an entirely independent literature, we must deal 
with each separately. 

First, of the Black Yajus. The data thus far known to 
us concerning it open up such extensive literary perspec- 
tives, but withal in such a meagre way, that investigation 
has, up to the present time, been less able to attain to 
approximately satisfactory results* than in any other field. 
In the first place, the name “Black Yajus” belongs only 
to a later period, and probably arose in contradistinction 
to that of the Wliite Yajus. While the theologians of the 
Rik are called Bahvrichas, and those of the Saman Chhan- 
(iogas, the old name for the theologians of the Yajus is 
Adhvaryus ; and, indeed, these three names are already so 

• See L i. 6S, flf. [All the been publiabed; aeo the ensuing 
texte, with the exception of the notes.] 

Sutras relating to ritual, have now 



employed in the Samhitd of the Black Yajus and the 
Briiimana of the White Yajus. In the latter work the 
designation Adhvaryus is applied to its own adherents, 
and'^the Charakadhvaryus are denoted and censured as 
their adversaries — an enmity which is also apparent in a 
passage of the Samliita of the White Yajus, where the 
Charakacharya, as one of the persons to he dedicated at 
the Puriishamedha, is devoted to Dushkrita, or “ lU deed.” 
This is all the more strange, as the term charaTca is other- 
wise always used in a good sense, for “ travelling scholar ; ” 
as is also the root char, “ to wander about for instruction.” 
The explanation probably consists simply in the fact that 
the name Charakas is also, on the other hand, applied to 
one of the principal schools of the Black Yajus, whence 
we have to assume that there was a direct enmity between 
these and the adherents of the White Yajus who arose in 
opposition to them— a hostility similarly manifested in 
other cases of the kind. A second name for the Black 
Yajus is “ Taittin'ya,” of which no earlier appearance c^ 
be traced than that in its own Prdtilakhya-Siitra, and in 
the Sdma-Siitras. Panini* connects this name with a 
Rishi called Tittiri, and so does the Anukramani to the 
jLtreya school, wdiich w'e shall have frequent occasion to 
mention in the sequel. Later legends, on the contrary, 
refer it to the transformation of the pupils of Vai^ampa- 
yana into pai-tridges (tittiri), in order to pick up the yajm- 
verses disgorged by one of their companions who was 
wroth with his teacher. However absurd this legend may 
be, a certain amount of sense yet lurks beneath its sur- 
face. The Black Yajus is, in fact, a motley, undigested 
jumble of different pieces ; and I am myself more inclined 
to derive the name Taittiriya from the variegated par- 
tridge (tittiri) than from the Rishi Tittiri ; just as another 
name of one of the prinftpal schools of the Black Yajus, 
that of the Khandikiyas, probably owes its formation to 

' • The rule referred to (iv. 3. 102) 
isy according to the statement of 
the Calcutta scholiast, not explained 
in Pataipjali’s Jllidshya ; possibly, 
therefore, it may not be Pdniui’s at 
all, but may be later than Pataip- 
jali. [The name Taittiriya itself. 

however, is several times mentioned 
in the Bhdshya, see /. xiii. 44^t 
which is also acquainted with ^Tit* 
tirind proktdh Uokdhy* not belonging 
to the Chhandas, see /. St,y v. 41 ; 
Goldstiicker, Pdnhiiy p. 243 -] 



this very fact of the Black Yajus being made up of 

ents, although Panini,* * * § as in the case of 


Taittirfya, traces it to a Rishi of the name of^fKhandika 
and although we do really meet with a Khandika (Aud- 
bhdri) in the Brdhmana of the White Yajus (xi. 8. 4. i). 

Of the many schools which are allotted to the Black 
Yajus, all probably did not extend to Samhitd and Brdh- 
iQ,ana ; some probably embraced the Siitras only.’f Thus 
far, at least, only three different recensions of the Samhita 
are directly known to us, two of them in the text itself, 
the third merely from an Anukramani of the text. The 
two first are the Taittiriya-Samhitd, Kar so called, 

which is ascribed to the school of Apastamba, a subdivision 
of the Khdndikiyas ; and the KdtJiaka, which belongs to 
the school of the Charakas, and that particular subdivision 

! name of Charayani'yas.t The Sam- 

U ii 



in essentials with that of Apastamba. This is not the 
case with the Kathaka, which stands on a more indepen- 
dent footing, and occupies a kind of intermediate position 
between the Black and the White Yajus, agreeing fre- 
quently with the latter as to the readings, and with the 
former in the arrangement of the matter. The Kathaka, 
together with the EdridraviJca—o. lost work, which, how- 
ever, likewise certainly belonged to the Black Yajus, viz., 
to the school of the Harid ravi y as, a- subdivision of the 
Maitrayaniyas — is the only work of the Brahmana order 
mentioned by name in Yaska’s Nirukta. Panini, too, 
makes direct reference to it in a rule, and it is further 
alluded to in the Anupada-Sutra and Brihaddevata. The 
name of the Kathas does not appear in other Vedic 

i, nor does that of Apastamba.§ 

* The rule is tlie same as that for 
Tittiri. 'J'lie remark in the previous 
note, therefore, applies here also. 

f As is likewise the case with the 
other Vedas. 

Besides the text, we have also 
a RishyannkrcTtnanl for it. 

§ In later writings several Kashas 
are distinguished, the Kashas, the 
Prdchya-Kathas, and the Kapish- 

|hala-Ka^has ; the epithet of these 
last is found in Piiniiii (viii. 3. 91), 
and Megasthenes mentions the 
^afi^laOokoi m a people in the Pan- 
jstb — In the Fort-William Catalogue 
a Kapish^hala-Samhitjl is mcntioiif^d 
[see /. H.y xiii. 375, 439. — At the 
time of tlie Mahdhhdshya the posi- 
tion of the Kathas must have been 
one of great consideration, since 


The Samhita of the Apastamba school consists of seven 
books (called ashlakas /) ; these again are divided into 44 
p7’ainas, 651 anuvdkas, and 2198 kandikds, the latter being 
separated from one another on the prineiple of an equal 
number of syllables to eaeh.^® Nothing definite can be ascer- 
tained as to the extent of the Atreya recension ; it is like- 
wise divided into kdndas, prasnas, and anuvdkas, the first 
words of which coincide mostly with those of the corre- 
sponding sections of the Apastamba school. The Kathaka 
is quite differently divided, and consists of five parts, of 
which the three first are in their turn divided into forty 
stkdnakas, and a multitude of small sections (also pro- 
bably separated according to the number of words) ; while 
the fourth merely specifies the richas to be sung by the 
Hotar, and the fifth contains the formulas belonging to the 
horse-sacrifice. In the colophons to the three first parts, 
the Charaka-Sakha is called Ithimikd, Madhyamikd, and 
Orimikd, respectively: the first and last of these three 
appellations are still unexplained.®^ The Brahmana por- 
tion in these works is extremely meagre as regards the 
ritual, and gives but an imperfect picture of it ; it is, how- 
ever, peculiarly rich in legends of a mythological cha- 
racter. The sacrificial formulas themselves are on the 
whole the same as those contained in the Sarnhita of the 
White Yajus; but the order is different, although the 

they— and their text, the Kd^haka constitutes the norm ; fifty words, 
—are repeatedly mentioned; see as a rule, form a see /. Si., 

1 . St., xiii. 437, ff. The foumler of xi. 13, xii. 90, xiii. 97-99. Instead 
their school, Katha, .appears in the of ashtaka, we find also the more 
Habdbbdshya as Vai&impdyana’s correct name kdn^a, and instead of 
pupil, and the Kathas tliemselves prasna, which is peculiar to the 
appear in close connection with the Taitt.irlya texts, the em- 
KiLldpas and Kauthumas, both ployed term, prajxithaka ; see I. St., 
Bchools of the Sdman. Inthelllund- xi. 13, i24.-7-'I he Taitt. Brdhnp and 
yaqia, too, the Ka^ha-Kdldpas are the Taitt. Ar., ai'e also subdivided 
mentioned as being much esteemed into kandikds, and these .again nito 
in Ayodhyd (ii. 32. 18, Schlegel). very small sections; but the princi- 
Hariidatta’s st.atement, “ jBa/trf fcAd- pie of divisions not yet 
ndmopyosff ir’a^/Mi.^/:Ad”(Bh.attoji’s been clearly .ascertained. 

Siddh. Kaum. ed. Tdrdndtha (1865), Ithimikd is to be derived from 

vol. ii. p. 524, on Pdn., vii. 4. 38), htifjdma {from hctlJid, i.e., udhasfdl), 
probably rests upon some mi.-.nnder- and Orimikd from vrarima (from 
•tending ; see I. St., xiii. 438.] xtpari) ; see my paper, Ueher die Bha> 

** It is not the number of sylla- yavati dcr Jaina, i. 404, n. 

Wes. bnt the number of words, 



order of the ceremonial to which they belong is pretty 
much the same. There are also many discrepancies with 
regard to the words ; we may instance, in particular, the 
expansion of the semi- vowels v and y after a consonant 
into uv and iy, which is peculiar to the Apastamba 
school.®^ As to data, geographical or historical, &c. (here, 
of course, I can only speak of the Apastamba school and 
the Kdthaka), in consequence of the identity of matter 
these are essentially the same as those which meet us in 
the Samhita of the ^V^ite Yajus. (In the latter, however, 
they are more numerous, formulas beir^ also found here 
for ceremonies which are not known in the former — the 
purtbsluimedlia, for instance.) Now these data — to which 
we must add some other scattered allusions ♦ in the por^ 

tions bearing the character of a Brabmana 


as we shall see, to the floiirishing epoch of the kingdom of 
tlie Kuru-Panchalas,®^ in which district we must there- 
fnrri reco^misc nlapp. of orifrin of both works. Whether 

this also holds good of their final redaction is another 
question, the answer to which, as far as the Apastamba- 
Samhita is concerned, naturally depends upon the amount 
of influence in its arrangement to be ascribed to Apa- 
stamba, whose name it bears. The Kathaka, according to 

entirely finished work even in Yaska’s time, since 

existed as an 
ne. since he 

quotes it ; the Anukramani of the Atreya school, on the 
contrary, makes Yaska Paingi®* (as the pupil of Vai^am- 
payana) the teacher of Tittiri, the latter again the in- 

For further particulars, see 
/, siii. 104-106. 

* Amongst them, for example, 
the enumeration of the whole of the 
lunar asterisms in the Apastamba- 
Saiphitd, where they appear in an 
order deviating from that of the 
later series, w'hich, as I have pointed 
out above (p. 30), must necessarily 
have been fixed between 1472 and 
536 B.O. But all that follows from 
this, in regard to the passage in 
question, is that it is not earlier 
tlian 1472 B.C., which is a matter of 
course; it nowise follows that it 
may not be later than 53^ 
we obtain nothing definite here. 

[This remains correct, though the 
position of the case itself is some* 
what different ; see the notes above, 
p. 2 and p. 30. In connection with 
the enumeration of the Nakshatras, 
compare especially my essay, Dk 
vedkehen Nachrickten von den Na^ 
kshatray ii. 299, fif.] 

Of peculiar interest is the men* 
tion of Dlifitardsh^ra Vaichitravirya, 
as also of the contests between the 
Pafichdlas and the Kuntis in the 
Kdthaka; see 1 . St.y iii. 469-472. 

Bhatta Bhfckara Mi 5 i*a, on the 
contrary, gives Yajnavalka instead 
of Paifigi ; see Burnell's Catalogue^ 
p. 14. 


fltructor of Ukha, and Ukha the preceptor of Atreya* 
This at least clearly exhibits its author’s view of the 
priority of Yaska to the schools and redactions^ of the 
Black Yajus bearing the names of Tittiri and Atreya; 
although the data necessary to prove the correctness of 
this view are wanting. That, however, some sort of influ- 
ence in the arrangement of the Samhita of the Black Yajus 
is certainly to be attributed to Yaska, is evitlent further 
from the "fact that Bhatta Bhaskara Mi^ra, in an extant 
fragment of his commentary on the Apastamba-Sainhita,t 
quotes, side by side with the views of Ka^akritsna and 
Ekachurni regarding a division of the text, the opinion of 
Yaska also. 

Along with the Kathaka, the Mdnava and the Mailra 
are very frequently quoted in the commentaries on the 
Kdtiya-Sutra of the White Yajus. We do not, it is true, 
find these names in the Siitras or similar works ; but at all 
events they are meant for works resembling the Kathaka, 
as is shown by the quotations themselves, which are often 
of considerable length. Indeed, we also find, although only 
in later writings, the Maitrayaniyas, and, as a subdivision 
of these, the Manavas, mentioned as schools of the Black 



* Atreya was the padakdra of his with Sdyana’s coniiilete commentary, 
school; Kundina, on the contrary, was commenced by Roer (1854), coU' 
the vrittikdra. The meaning of tinned by Cowell and Kdma Ndrd- 
Vfitti is here obscure, as it is also in yana, and is now in the hands of 
SchoL to Pd^., iv. 3. 108 {mddhuH Mahe^achandra Ny;iyaratna (the last 

[see /. St, xiii. 3S1]. part, Jso. 28, 1874, reaches to iv. 

t We have, besides, a commen- 3. ii) ; the complete text, in Roman 
tary by Sdya];La, though it is only transcript, lias been published by 
fi'agmeutary ; another is ascribed to myself in /. St, xi., xii. (i 87 l- 72 )« 
a Bdlakfishi^Dia. [In Bnriieirs Col- On the Kdthaka, see /. iii, 45^"' 
lection of MSS., see his CaUdogue, 479 -] 

pp. 12-14, is found the greater por- t According to the Fort-William 
tion of Bha^^a Kau^ika Bhdskara Catalogue, the ‘Muitrdyanl-Sdkhd’ 
Mi6ra*B commentary, under the name is in existence there. [Other MSS. 
Jndnaycyna^ the author is said to have since been found; see Haug in 
have lived 400 years before Sdya^a ; /. St, ix. 175, and his essay Brahma 
he quotes amongst others Bhavasvd- md die Brahmancn, pp. 3 ^”34 
min, and seems to stand in special (1871), and Biihler^s detailed survey 
connection with the Atreyl school, of the works composing this Sdkhd 
A Paiidtehahhdehya on the Black in LSt., xiii. 103, 117-128. Accord- 
Tajus is aisc mentioned j see L St, ing to tliis, the Maitr. Saiphitd con- 
ix. 176. -^An edition of the Tait- sists at present of five idndas, two 
tiriya-Saiphitd in the BiW. Indica, of which, however, are but later ad- 

Possibly these works may still be in existence in 



Besides the Samhitd so called, there is a Brdhmana 
recognised by the school of Apastamba, and also by that 
of Atreya,* which, however, as I have already remarked, 
diffei-s from the Samhita, not as to the nature of its con- 
tents, but only in point of time ; it is, in fact, to be regarded 
merely as a supplement to it. It either reproduces the 
formulas contained in the Samhitd, and connects them 
with their proper ritual, or it develops further the litur- 
gical rules already given there ; or again, it adds to these 
entirely new rules, as, for instance, those concerning the 
purushamedha, which is altogether wanting in the Sam- 
hita, and those referring to the sacrifices to the lunar 
asterisms. Only the third and last book, in twelve prapA- 
(hakas, together with Sayana’s commentary, is at present 
known.^® The three last prapdf hakas, which contain four 
different sections, relating to the manner of preparing cer- 
tain peculiaily sacred sacrificial fires, are ascribed in the 
Anukramanl of the Atreya school (and this is also con- 
firmed by Sayana in another place) to the sage Katha. 
Two other sections also belong to it, which, it seems,, are 
only found in the Atreya school, and not in that of Apa- 
stamba ; and also, lastly, the two first books of the Tait- 
tirfya-Aranyaka, to be mentioned presently. Together 
these eight sections evidently form a supplement to the 
Kathaka above discussed; they do not, however, appear 
to exist as an independent work, but only in connection 
with the Brahmana and Aranyaka of the Apastamba- 
(and Atreya-) schools, from which, for the rest, they can 
be externallv distinguished easilv enoimh by the absence of 
the expansion of v and y into uv and iy. The legend 
quoted towards the end of the second of these sections 
{prap. xi. 8), as to the visit of Nachiketas, to the lower 

ditions, viz., the Upaiiisbad (see be- edited, with Sdyana’s commentaiy, 
low), which pusses as Adnrfaii,,and in the Bihl, Ind, (1855-70), hy lid* 
the last Adnrfrt, called Khila.] jendra Ldla Mitra. The lliranya- 

* At least as regards the fact, for ke6i&tkhiya- Ih-dlnnana quoted’ by 
the designation Saiphitit or Bnlli- Biihlcr, Va(alof/ue 0/ Sanskrit MSS, 
niana does not occur in its Anukra- from Gujai^U, i. 38, is not likely to 
niani. On the contrary, it passes depart much from the ordinary 
without any break from the portions Apastamba text ; the respective 
which belong in the Apastamba Srauta-Sfitras at least agi’ee almost 
school to the JSarphitd, to those there liTerally with each otlier ; see Biihler, 
belonging to the Brtihmapa. Apa^tambii/a-dhaniiasutra^ Preface, 

All tin •ee books have been p. 6 (1868), 



world, gave rise to an TJpanishad of the Atliarvan which 
bears the name of Kathakopanishad. Now, between this 
supplement to the Kathaka and the Kathaka itself a con- 
siderable space of time must have elapsed, as follows from 
the allusions made in the last sections to Malui-IMeru, 
Krauficha, Mainaga ; to Vai^ampayana, Vyasa Para^arya, 
&c. ; as well as from the literature therein presupposed as 
existing, the ‘ Atharvangirasas,’ Brahmanas, Itihasas, Pura- 
nas, Kalpas, Gathas, and Nara^ahsis being enumerated as 
subjects of study {svddhydya). Purther, the last but one 
of these sections is ascribed to another author, viz., to the 
Arunas, or to Aruna, whom the scholiast on Panini®** 
speaks of as a pupil of Vai^ampayana, a statement with 
which its mention of the latter as an authority talKes 
excellently ; this section is perhaps therefore only errone- 
ously assigned to the school of the Kathas. — The Tait- 
tiriyor Aranyalia, at the head of which that section stands 
(as already remarked), and which belongs both to the 
Apastamba and Atreya schools, must at all events be 
regarded as only a later supplement to their Brahman a, 
and belongs, like most of the Aranyakas, to the extreme 
end of the Vedic period. It consists of ten books, the 
first six of which are of a liturgical character : the first 
and third books relate to the manner of preparing certain 
sacred sacrificial fires ; the second to preparatives to the 
study of Scripture; and the fourth, fifth, and sixth to 
purificatory sacrifices and those to the Manes, correspond- 
ing to the last books of the Sainhitd of the White Y^jus. 
The last four books of the Aranyaka, on the contrary, 
contain two Upanishads; viz., the seventh, eighth, and 
ninth books, the TaittiHyopanishad, Kar. i^oxyv so called, 
and the tenth, the Ydjniki- or NdrdyaTdyd-Upanishad. 
The former, or Taittiriyopanishad, is in three parts. The 
first is the Samhitoparvishad, or SiksMvalH* which begins 
with a short grammatical disquisition,®^ and then turns to 

®* Kaiyafa on Piiri., iv. 2. 104 * Valli means ‘a creeper;' it is 

(Mabdblnisliya, fol. 73*, ed. Bcn.ares); perhaps meant to describe these Upa- 
he calls him, however, Aru^i in- nishads as ‘ creepers,’ which have 
stead of Aru^a, and derives from attached themselves to the Veda- 
him the school of the Arunins (cited ^dkhd. 

in the Bhdshya, ibid.) ; the Axu^is are Bee above, p. 6 1 ; Muller, A . 8 . L., 

oited in the Kdthaka itself ; see p. 1 13, ff. ; Hang, tkher das Wesen 
I. St., iii. 475. des vedischen Accents, p. 54 * 



the question of the unity of the world-spirit. The second 
and third are the Atiandavalli and BhriguvalU, which 
together also go by the name of Vdruni- UpanisMd, and 
treat of the bliss of entire absorption in m^itation upon 
the Supreme Spirit, and its identity with the individual 
soul.* If in these we have already a thoroughly systematised 
form of speculation, we are carried even further in one 
portion of the Tajnikl-Upanishad, where we have to do 
with a kind of sectarian worship of Ndrayana : the remain- 
ing part contains ritual supplements. Now, interesting as 
this whole Aranyaka is from its motley contents and evi- 
dent piecing together of collected fragments of all sorts, 
it is from another point of view also of special importance 
for us, from the fact that its tenth book is actually extant 
in a double recension, viz., in a text which, according to 
Sayana’s statements, belongs to the Dravidas, and in an- 
other, bearing the name of the Andhras, both names of 
peoples in the south-west of India. Besides these two 
texts, Sayana also mentions a recension belonging to the 
Karnatakas, and another whose name he does not give. 
Lastly, this tenth bookt exists also as an Atharvopa- 
nishad, and here again with many variations ; so that there 
is here opened up to criticism an ample field for researches 
and conjectures. Such, certainly, have not been wanting 
in Indian literary history ; it is seldom, however, that the 
facts lie so ready to hand as we have them in this case, 
and this we owe to Sayana’s commentary, which is here 
really excellent. 

When we look about us for the other Brahmanas of the 
Black Yajus, we find, in the first place, among the schools 


* See a traiisliitioi*, &c., of the vii.-ix., see the previous note), in 
Taitt. Upanihluicl in /, ii. 207- JHhL Ind. (1864-72), by Ihljeiulra 
235. It has been edited, with 6aip- Ldla Mitra; the text is the Dntv 
kara s commentary, by Roer in BxhL text commented upon by Sayana, in 
Indica^ vol. vii. [; the ^xt alone, as sixty-four anuvdkas^ the various 
a portion of the Taitt. Ar., by Rdjen- readings of the Andhra text (in 
dra lidla Mitra also, see next note, eighty anuvdkfia) being also added. 
Roer’s translation appeared in vol. In BurueU’s collection there is also 
XV. of the BihUotheca Indica], a commentai*y on the Taitt. Ar., by 

t See a partial translation of it in Bhatta Bhdskara M'lira, whicli, like 
/, SL, ii. 78-100. [It is published that on the Saiphihl, is entitled 
in the, complete edition of the Jndnayajna ; see Burneirs Cato* 
Taitt. Aranyaka, with Sayana’s com- pp, 16, 17.] 

meutary thereon (excepting books 



That the Bhallavins belong to 

cited in the Suma-Sutras two which must probably be 
considered as belonging to the Black Yajus, vi/., the Bh&L 
lavins and tlie ^dlydyanins. The Brahinaiia of the Bhdl- 
laviv^ is quoted by the scholiast on Panini, probably fol- 
lowing the Mahabhashya as one of the ‘ old ’ Brahmanas : 
we find it mentioned in the Brihaddevata ; Surcsvaracharya 
also, and even Sayana himself, quote passages from the 
Bhallavi^ruti. A passage supposed to be borrowed from 
the Bhallavi-Upanishad is adduced by the sect of the 
Madliavas in support of the correctness of their (Dvaita) 
belief {As. lies., xvi. 104). 
the Black Yajus is, however, still uncertain ; I only con- 
clude so at present from the fact that Bhallaveya is the 
name of a teacher specially attacked and censured in the 
Brahmana of the White Yajus. As to the ^dtydyanins, 
whose Brahmana is also reckoned among the ‘ old ’ ones by 
the scholiast on Pamni,®® and is frequently quoted, espe- 
cially by Sayana, it is pretty certain that they belong to 
the Black Yajus, as it is so stated in the Charanav)ruha, a 
modern index of the different schools of the Vedas, and, 
moreover, a teacher named Satyayani is twice mentioned 
in the Brahmana of the White Yajus. The special regard 
paid to them in the Sama-Sutras, and which, to judge 
h-om the quotations, they themselves paid to the Saman, is 
probably to be explained by the peculiar connection (itself 
still obscure) which we find elsewhere also between the 
schools of the Black Yajus and those of the Saman.^®® Thus, 
the Kathas are mentioned along with the Saman schools 

Tliis is not so, for in the Bhd- 
sJiya to tho particular iMra of Pdn. 
(iv. 3, 105), the Bbdllavins are not 
mentioned. They are, however, 
mentioned elsewhere in the work, at 
iv. 2. 104 (here Kaiy<»tM derives tiiein 
from a teacher Bhallu : Bhallund 
f>roktam adhiyat^ ; as a Bkdllaveyo 
Matsyo rdjapuirah is cited in the 
Anupada, vL 5, their home may 
have been in the country of the 
Matsyas ; see /. St,, xiii. 441, 442. 
At the time of the Bhdshika-Sdtra 
their Brdhmana text was still accen- 
tuated, in the same way as the ^ata- 
patha ; see Kielhorn, I, St,, x. 421. 

^ The Uahdbhdshya is not his au- 

thority in this case either, for it does 
not mention the ^dtydyanins in its 
comment on tl»e siltra in question 
(iv. 3. 105), But Kaiya^a cites the 
Brdliinanas proclaimed by 6dtyd- 
yana, &c., as contemporaneous with 
the Ydjnavaikdni Brdhmundni and 
SaulAibUdiii /?r., which are mentioned 
in the Mahdbhdshya (see, however, 
1 . SL, V. 67, 6S) ; and the Mahdbhd- 
shya itself cites the Sd^ydyaninsalong 
with the Bhdllavins (on iv. 2. 104) ; 
they belonged, it would seem, to the 
north ; see /. St,, xiii. 442'. 

See on this /. St,, iii. 473, xiii. 

439 - 



of the Kalapas and Kauthumas ; and along with the latter 
the Laukakshas also. As to the Sakayanins,* Sayakayani ns. 
Kalabavins, and ^alankayanins,^^^ with whom, as with the 
Scityayanins, we are only acquainted through quotations, 
it is altogether uncertain whether they belong to the Black 
Yajus or not. The ChhagcUins, whose name seems to be 
borne by a tolerably ancient Upanishad in AnquetiTs 
OupneJchat, are stated in the Charanavyiiha to form a 
school of the Black Yajus (according to Panini, iv. 3. 1 09, 
they are called Chhdgaleyins) : the same is there said of 
the ^vctd 4 vataras. The latter gave their name to an 
Upanishad composed in a metrical form, and called at its 

close the work of a ^vetaivatara : in which the Samkhva 


doctrine of the two primeval principles is mixed up with 
the Yoga doctrine of one Lord, a strange misuse being 
here made of wholly irrelevant passages of the Samhita, 
&c., of the Yajus; and upon this rests its sole claim to be 
connected with the latter. Kapila, the originator of the 
Samkhya system, appears in it raised to divine dignity 
itself, and it evidently belongs to a very late period ; for 
though several passages from it are quoted in the Brahma- 
Siitra of Badarayana (from which its priority to the latter 
at least would appear to follow), they may just as weU 
have been borrowed from the common source, the Yajus. 
It is, at all events, a good deal older than ^amkara, since 
he regarded it as Sruti, and commented upon it. It has 
recently been published, together with this commentary,* by 
Dr. Eoer, in the Bibliotheca Indica, vol. vii. ; see also Ind. 
Stud., i. 420, IT. — The Mailrdyaim Upanishad at least bears 
a more ancient name, and might perhaps be connected 

* They are mentioned in the 
tenth book of the Brfihrnnna of the 
White Yajus [see also Kilthaka 22. 
7, I, St., iii. 472] ; as is also Sityakd- 

The Sdlankdyauas are ranked as 
Bnlhmanas amon<? the Vdhikas in 
the Calcutta scholium to IMn. v, 3. 
1 14 {bhdshjfe na vydkkydtam), Vyd- 
mother, Satyavati, is called 
Sdlankdyanajd, and Pdnitii himself 
^alanki ; see /. SL, xiii. 375, 395, 
428, 429. 

iw This statement needs correc- 

tion to this extent, that the Chara- 
^avydha does not know the name 
Chhagalin at all (which is mentioned 
by Pdr^ini alone), but speaks only of 
Chhdgeyas or Chhdgaleyas ; see /. 
^^.,iii. 258; Muller, A. S, L,, p. 370. 
On AnquetiTs ‘ Tschakli * Upanishad 
see now /, SU, ix. 42-46. 

* Distinguished by a great num- 
ber of sometimes tolerably long 
quotations from the Purdnas, &c, 
[Uoer’s translation was published in 
the Bihl, Ind., vol. xv,] 



with the above-mentioned Maitra (Brahmana). Its text, 
however, both in language and contents, shows that, com- 
pared with tlie latter, it is of a very modern date. At pre- 
sent, unfortunately, I liave at my command only the four 
first prcqniihakas, and tliese in a very incorrect form,* — 
whereas in Anquetil’s translation, the Upauishad consists 
of twenty chapters, — yet even tliese are sufficient clearly 
to determine the character of the work. King Briliadra- 
tha, who, penetrated by the nothingness of earthly tilings, 
resigned the sovereignty into the hands of his son, and 
devoted himself to contemplation, is tlicie instructed by 
^akayanya (see gana ‘Kunja’) upon the relation of the 
dtman (soul) to the world; ^akayanya communicates to 
him what Maitreya had said upon this subject, who in his 
turn had only repeated the instruction given to the Bdla- 
khilyas by Trajapati himself. The doctrine in question is 
thus derived at third hand only, and we have to recognise 
in this tradition a consciousness of the late origin of this 
form of it. This late origin manifests itself externally 
also in the fact that corresponding passages from other 
sources are quoted with exceeding frequency in support of 
the doctrine, introduced by “ atlul ’nyatrd ’py uJetam” “ etad 
apy uktam,” “ atre ’me Slokd bhavanti,” “ atha yathe ’yam 
Kautsdyanastulih.” The ideas themselves are quite upon 
a level with those of the fully developed Samkhya doc- 
trine,t and the language is completely marked off from the 

* I obt^iined them quite recently, to the commentary, on the one 
in transcript, through the kindness hand, the two last books aro to be 
of Baron d’Ecksteiii, of Paris, to- considered as khilaa^ and on the 
getber with the tenth adhydya of a other, the whole Upanishad belongs 
metrical paraphrase, called AndbhH- to a 'pUrvakdnday in four books, of 
iiprakdia^ of this Upanishad, extend- ritual purport, by which most likely 
ing, in 150 ^lokaBy over these four is meant the Maititiyani-Saqihitd 
fTa^pd^hakas, The latter is copieil discussed by Biihler (see /. xiii, 
from E, I. IL, 693, and is probably 119, ff.), in which the Upanishad is 
identical with the work of Vidyd- quoted as the second (!) kdnda ; bqq 
ra^ya often mentioned by Cole- /, c., p. 121. The transcript sent me 
brooke. [It is really so ; and this by Eckstein shows manifold devia- 
portion has since been published, lions from the other text ; its ori- 
together with the Upanishad in full, ginal has unforlunately not been 
by Cowell, his edition of tlie discovered yet.] 

Maitr. Upanishad, in seven praj^d- + Brahman, lludra, and Vishnu 
(lidkas^ with Rdmatirtha’s commen- represent respectively the Sattva, 
tary and an English translation, in the Tamas, and the Kajas elements 
the £ibl, Ind. (1862-70). According of Prajiipati. 




prose of the Brahmanas, both by extremely long com- 
pounds, and by words entirely foreign to these, and only 
belonging to the epic period (such as sura, yaksha, uraga, 
h’hMagana, &c.). The mention also of the grdhas, plemets, 
and of the motion of the polar star {dhruvasya praclia 
lanam), supposes a period considerably posterior to the 
Brahmana.^®* The zodiacal signs are even mentioned in 
Anquetii’s translation ; the text to which I have access 
does not unfortunately extend so far.'®* That among the 
princes enumerated in the introduction as having met 
their downfall, notwithstanding all their greatness, not one 
name occurs belonging to the narrower legend of the 
Maha-Bharata or Kamayana, is no doubt simply owing to 
tlie circumstance that Brihadratlia is regarded as the pre- 
decessor of the Pandus. For we have probably to identify 
him with the Brihadratlia, king of Magadha, who accord- 
ing to the Maha-Bharata (ii. 756) gave up the sovereignty 
to his son Jarasamdha, afterwards slain by the Pandus, 
and retired to the wood of penance. I cannot forbear con- 
necting with the instruction here stated to have been given 
to a king of Magadha by a Sdkdyanya the fact that it 
was precisely in Magadha that Buddhism, the doctrine of 
^dkyamuni, found a welcome. I would even go so far as 
directly to conjecture that we have here a Brahmanical 
legend about Sdkyamuni; whereas otherwise legends of 
this kind reach us only through the adherents of the Bud- 
dhist doctrine. Maitreya, it is well known, is, with the 
Buddhists, the name of the future Buddha, yet in their 
legends the name is also often directly connected with 
their ^dkyarauni ; a Piirna Maitrdyaniputra, too, is given 
to the latter as a pupil. Indeed, as far as we can judge at 

According to Cowell (p. 244), 
by graha we have here to uuder- 
etand, once at least (i. 4), not tlie 
planets but bdlagrahas (children’s 
disejises); “ Dhiruvazya frachalanam 
probably only refers to a jiralaya ; 
then even ‘ the never-ranging pole 
star’ is forced to move.” In a 
second passage, however (vi. 16, p. 
124), the grahas appear along with 
the moon and the fikskas. Very 
peculiar, too, is the statement as to 
the stellar limits of the sun’s two 

journeys (vi. 14; Cowell, pp. 119, 
266) ; see on this L St,^ ix. 363. 

104 The text has nothing of this 
(vii. I, p. 198); but special mention 
is here made of Saturn, dani (p, 
201), and where iukra occurs (p, 
200), we might perhaps think of 
Venus. This last adhydya through- 
out clearly betrays its later origin ; 
of special interest is the bitter pole- 
mic against heretics and unbelievers 

(p, 206). 


present, the doctrine of this Upanishad stands in close 

connection with the opinions of the Buddhists, although 

from its Brahmanical oj-igin it is naturally altogether free 

from the dogma and mythology peculiar to Buddhism. 

Wo may here also notice, c.specially, the contempt for 

writing (j/rantha) exhibited in one of the UoJms * quoted 
in corroboration. 

Neither tlie Chhagalins, nor the ^veta^vataras, nor the 

Maitrayani'yas are mentioned in the Sutras of the other 

Vedas, or in similar works, as schools of the Black Yajus ; 

still, we must certainly ascribe to the last mentioned a 

veiy active share in its development, and the names 

Maitreya and Maitreyf at least are not unfrequently 
quoted in the Brahmanas. 

In the case of the SiUrcLs, too, belonging to the Black 
Yajus, the large number of different schools is very 
striking. Although, as in the case of the Brahmanas, we 
only know the greater part of them through quotations, 
there is reason to expect, not only that the remarkably 
rich collection of the India Hoiise (with which I am only 
very superficially acquainted) will be found to contain 
many treasures in this department, but also that many of 
them will yet be recovered in India itself. The Berlin 
collection does imt contain a single one. In the first 
place, as to the Srauta-SiUras, my only knowledge of the 
KathaS'iUTa^'\ the 3fan-u-Sdt7'(i, tlie Maih'ii-SAb'a, and 
the Laugdkshi-SutTa is derived from the commentaries on 
the Katiya-Siitra of the AVhite Yajus; the second, how- 
ever,io« stands in the catalogue of the Fort-William col- 

Bdna’s Harsliacharitra iuforma 
UB of a Miiitrdyanlya Divdkara who 
otnbraced the Buddhist ci’eed ; and 
Bh&u DAji (Jou 7 *nal Bombay Branch 
A A, S,, X. 40) adds that even now 
Maitr. Brahmans live iiearBhadgdoii 

of the Vindhya, with 
whom other Brahmans do not eat 
^ common j * the reason may havo 

b^n the early Buddhist tendencies 
of many of them/ 

Which, by the way, recurs to- 
other with some others in precisely 
the same form in the Amj-itavin- 
(or BrahmaviiKlu.) Upanishad. 
llhough it may be very doubtftd 

whether the word granika ought 
really A priori and for the earlier 
period to be understood of written 
texts (cf. L St,y xiii. 476), yet in 
this verse, at any rate, a different 
interpretation is hardly possible ; 
see below.] 

t Laugiikshi and tho ‘ LdmaJedya- 
nindm Brdhma^am ' are said to be 
quoted therein. 

On this, ae well as on the con- 
tents and tlie division of the work, 
see iny remarks in I, St., v. 13-16, 
in accordance with cominuuicationa 
received from Professor Cowell ; cf. 
ftlso Haug, ibid., ix. 175. A Mdnava 



lection , and of the last, whose author is cited in the 
Katha-Siitra, as well as in the Kdtiya-SiUra, there is, it 
appears, a copy in Vienna. Mahadeva, a commentator of 
the Kalpa-Sdtra of Satydshadha Hiranyake^i, when enu- 
merating the Taittiiiya-Siitras in successive order in his 
introduction, leaves out these four altogether, and names 
at the head of his list the Sdtra of Bavdhdyana as the 
oldest, then that of Bhdradvdja, next that of Apastamha, 
next that of HiranyakeH himself, and finally two names 
not otherwise mentioned in this connection, Vddhdna 
and Vaikhdnasa, the former of which is perhaps a cor- 
rupted form. Of these names, Bharadvaja is the only one 
to be found in Vedic works ; it appeal's in the Brdhmana 
of the White Yajus, especially in the supplements to the 
Vrihad-Aranyaka (where several persons of this name are 
mentioned), in the Katiya-Sdtra of the same Yajus, in the 
Prati^akhy a - Siitra of the Black Yajus, and in Pdnini. 
Though the name is a patronymic, yet it is possible that 
these last citations refer to one and the same person, in 
which case he must at the same time be regarded as the 
founder of a grammatical school, that of the Bhdradvajiyas. 
As yet, I have seen nothing of his Siitra, and am acquainted 
with it only through quotations. According to a state- 
ment by the Mahddeva just mentioned, it treats of the 
oblation to the Manes, in two prainas, and therefore shares 
with the rest of the Siitras this designation of the sections, 
wliich is peculiar to the Black Yajus.^*^ The Siitra of 
Apastamba * is found in the Library of the India House, 
and a part of it in Paris also. Commentaries on it by 

Srauta-SAtra is also cited in Bttbler’s 
Cutalo(/iie of MSS. ft'om Gujardt^ i. 
l88 (1871) ; it is in 322 foil. The 
manuscript edited in facsimile by 
Goldstiicker under the title, * Md- 
nava KcUpa-Sdtray btiiig a portion of 
this ancient ivork on Vaidik riieSy to^ 
gether with the Coi 7 imentary of Kn~ 
indrilaevdmin ’ {1861), gives but little 
of the text, the commentary quoting 
only the first words of the passages 
commented upon ; whether the con- 
cluding words, ^ Kumdrelabhd$hyam 
vamdpiaiji^^ really indicate that 

Kumdrilasvdmin was the author of 
the commentary seems still doubt- 

iw Bhdradvdjiya - Stitra has 
now been discovered by Biihler ; see 

his Catal. of MSS. from Ouj,, i. 186 
(212 foil.) ; the Vaikhduasa-Sfitra is 
also quoted, ib. i. 190 (292 foil.) ; see 
also Hang in I. St., ix. 175, 

* According to the quotations, the 
Vdjasaneynka, Bahvficha-Brdhmana, 
and Sdtydyanaka are frequently men* 
tioned therein. 


DhiirtagYamin and Tdlavrintanivasin are mentioned,^®® also 
one on the Siitra of Bandhdyana by Kapardisvdmin.^®® 
The work of Satyashadha contains, according to Maha- 
deva’s statement, twenty-seven praAnas, whose contents 
agree pretty closely with the order followed in the Katiya- 
Sdtra ; only the last nine form an exception, and are quite 
peculiar to it. The nineteenth and twentieth p'oAnas refer 
to domestic ceremonies, which usually find a place in the 
Grihya- and Smarta-Siitras. In the twenty-first, genealo- 
gicaf accounts and lists are contained; as also in di.praAna 
of the Baudhayana-Siitra.* 

Still scantier is the information we possess upon the 
Gfihya-SAhtras of the Black Yajus. The Kdthdka Grihya- 
Siitra is known to me only through quotations, as are also 
the Siitras of Baudhdyana (extant in the T’ort-Wilham 

On the Apastamba-Srauta-SA- 
tra and the commentaries belonging 
to it, by Dhtirtasv., Kapardiavdmin, 
Rudradatta, GuriKievasviLmin, Ka- 
ravindasvdmin, T 41 av., Ahobalasuri 
(A^aMlain Buhler, I, c., p. 150, who 
also mentions a N^sinha, p. 152), 
and others, see Burnell in bis Cata- 
logue^ pp. 18-24, and in the Indian 
Antiquary^ i, 5, 6. According to 
this the work consists of thirty 
prainoi; the first twenty-throe treat 
of the sacrificial rites in essentially 
the same order (from daHapUrna* 
mdaau to BoUrdya^am) as in Hira^- 
yakefii, whose Stitra generally is 

almost identical with that of Apa- 
stamba ; see Buhler’s preface to the 
Ap. Dharma-Sdtra, p. 6; the 24th 
praina contains the general rules, 
pwribkdAdBj edited by M. Muller in 
Z. D. M, ix. (1855), a pravara^ 

Kkautral^ ; prahias 25- 
27 contain the Gfihya-Sfitra ; prod’ 
nos 28, 29, the Dharma-Sdtra, edited 
by Buhler (1868); and finally, prahia 
30, the Sulva-Sfitra (iuZva, * mea- 
suring cord 

On the Baudhdyana-Sfitra com- 
pare likewise Burnell's Catalogue^ pp. 
24—30. BhaTasvdmin, who amongst 
o^era commented it^ is mentioned 
by Bhatta Bh&kara, and is conse- 
quently placed by Burnell (p. 26) in 

the eighth century. According to 
Kiclhorn, Catalogue of S> MSS, in 
tilt Soutii Division of the Bonibay 
Pm., p. 8, there exists a commen- 
tary on it by Silyapaalso, for whom, 
indeed, it constituted the special 
text-book of the Yajus school to 
which he belonged ; see Burnell, 
VaMa-Brdhma^^ay pp, ix.-xix. In 
Biihler's Catalogue of MSS, from 
Chij,y i. 182, 184, Anantadeva, Na- 
vahasta, and Scsha are also quoted as 
scholiiists. The exact compass of the 
entire work is not yet ascertained ; 
the Baudhdyana - Dharma - Sfitra, 
which, according to Buhler, Digezi 
of Hindu LaWy L p. xxi. (1867), 
forms part of the Srauta-Stitra, as 
in the case of Apastamba and Hirap- 
yakedi, was commented by Qovinda- 
Bvdrain ; see Burnell, p. 35. 

Mdtfidattaand Vdiichedvara(l) 
are also mentioned as commentators} 
see Kielhorn, I, c., p. 10. 

* Such lists are also found in 
A^valdyana’s work, at the end, 
though only in brief : for the Kdtiya- 
Sfitra, a PariSish^a comes in. [Praft- 
noB 26, 27, of lliranyakeSi treat of 
dharmaBy so that here also, ss in 
the case of Apast, and Baudh., the 
Dharma-Sdtra forms part of the 



collection), of BhAradvdja, and of Saiydshddha, or Hiran- 
yakeSi, unless in this latter case only the corresponding 
pra4nas of the Kalpa-Siitra are intended.'*^ I have myself 
only glanced through a Paddhati of the Grihya-Siitra of 
the Maitrdyaniya school, which treats of the usual subject 
(the sixteen samskdras, or sacraments). I conclude that 
there must also have been a Grihya-Siitra'^^ of the Mdnava 
school, from the existence of the Code bearing that name,^^* 
just as the Codes ascribed to Atrh Apastamba, Chhaga- 
leya, Baudhayana, Laugakshi, and Sdtyayana are probably 
to be traced to the schools of the same name belonging 
to the Black Yajus, that is to say, to their Grihya-Sdtras.^^* 
Lastly, the FrdtiAdkhya-Sdira has still to be mentioned 
os a Sdtra of the Black Yajus. The only manuscript with 
which I am acquainted unfortunately only begins at the 
fourth section of the first of the two praiTias. This work 
is of special significance from the number of very peculiar 
names of teachers * mentioned in it : as Atreya, Kaundinya 
(once by the title of Sthavira), and Bharadvaja, whom we 
know already ; also Valmiki, a name which in this con- 
nection is especially surprising; and further Agnive^ya, 
Agnive^yayana, Paushkarasadi, and others. The two last 
names, as well as that of Kaundinya, f are mentioned in 
Buddhist writings as the names either of pupils or of con- 
temporaries of Buddha, and Paushkarasadi is also cited 
in the vdrttikas to Panin i by Katyayana, their author. 
Again, the allusion occurring here for the first time to the 
Mfmahsakas and Taittiriyakas deserves to be remarked ; 

This is really so. On Apa- sbadvati .and Sarasvati as tlie proper 
stamba- and Blidradvdja-Grihya, spc home of the Mdnavas^ This appeari 
Bnrnell, Catalogue, pp. 30-33. The somewhat too strict. At any rate, 
sections of two ^ prayogas,' oi both the statements as to the extent of 
texts, rel*ating to birth ceremonial, the Madhyadesa wliich are found in 
have been edited by Speijor in his the Pnitijnd-Pari^ish^ of the White 
book De Ceremonia dpnd Indos quee Yajus point us for the latter more 
tocatur jdtaJearma (Leyden, 1872). to the east ; see my essay Ueber das 

It is actually extant ; see Biih- Pratijnd-Sutra (1872), pp. 101,105. 
ler. Catalogue^ i. 188 (80 foil.), and See Johantgen, L c., p. 108, 

Kielhorn, I, c., p. 10 (fragment). 109, 

Johiintgen in his valuable tract * Their number is twenty; see 
Ueber das Gesctzhuch des Manu Roth, Zvr Lilt, and Gesch. , pp. 65, 
(1863), p. 109, ff., has, from the geo- 66. 

graphical data in Manu, ii. 17, ff., t See 7 , SL, i. 441 not. [xiii. 387, 
fixed the territory between the Dfi- ff,, 418], 



also the contradistinction, found at the close of the work, 
of Chhaiidas and Bhdslid, i.e., of Vedic and ordinary lan- 
guage.^^® The work appears also to extend to a portion of 
the Aranyaka of the Black Yajus; whether to the whole 
cannot yet be ascertained, and is scarcely probable.^^® 

In conclusion, I have to notice the two AnuTcramanis 
already mentioned, the one belonging to the Atreya school, 
the other to the Charayaniya school of the Kathaka. The 
former deals almost exclusively with the contents of the 
several sections, which it gives in their order. It consists 
of two parts. The first, which is in prose, is a mere no- 
menclature ; the second, in thirty-four sloMs, is little more. 
It, however, gives a few particulars besides as to the trans- 
mission of the text. To it is annexed a commentary upon 
both parts, which names each section, together with its 
opening words and extent. The Anukramani of the Ka- 
thaka enters but little into the contents ; it limits itself, 
on the contrary, to giving the Rishis of the various sections 
as well as of the separate verses ; and here, in the case of 
the pieces taken from the Rik, it not unfrequently exhi- 
bits considerable divergence from the statements given in 
the Anukramanf of the latter, citing, in particular, a num- 
ber of entirely new names. According to the concluding 
statement, it is the work of Atri, who imparted it to 

We now turn to the White Yajus. 

With regard, in the first place, to the name itself, it 
probably refers, as has been already remarked, to the fact 
that the sacrificial formulas are here separated from their 

In the jinssapc in question kx. or Taitt. Brihin. is made in the 
(xxiv. 5), ‘ chhfnidohhdshd * ineauH text itself ; on the contrary, it con- 
rather ‘the Veda language;' see fines itself exclusively to the Taitt. 
Whitney, p, 417. S. The commentary, however, in 

We have now an excellent edi- some few instances goes beyond the 
tion of the work by Whitney, Jour- T. S. ; see Whitney's special discus- 
nal Am. Or. iSac., ix. (1S71), text, sion of the points here involved, pp. 
translation, and notes, together with 422-426; cf. also L iv. 76-79. 
a commentary called Trihhdshya- See 7 . iii. 373-401, xiL 

ra/no, by an anonymous author (or 350-357, and the similar statements 
is his name Kdrttikeyu?), a compila- from Hha^ta Bb^skara Mi 4 ra in Bur- 
tion from three older coni inentaries nell's p. 14. The Atreyl 

by Atreya, Mihisheya, and Vara- text here appears in a special rela- 
ruehi. — No reference to the Taitt. tion to a sdrasvata jpdiha^ 



ritual basis and dogmatical explanation, and that we have 
here a systematic and orderly distribution of the matter 
so confusedly mixed up in the Black Yajus. This is the 
way in which the expression hiTddni yaj'dhshi is explained 
by the commentator Dviveda Gafiga, in the only passage 
where up till now it has been found in this sense, namely , 
in the last supplement added to the Vrihad-Aranyaka of 
the White Yajus. I say in the only passage, for tliough it 
appears once under the form ivhrayaj'6/h8hi, in the Aranyaka 
of the Black Yajus (5. 10 ), it has hardly the same general 
meaning there, but probably refers, on the contrary, to the 
fourth and fiftli books of that Aranyaka itself. For in the 
Anukramani of the Atreya school these books bear the 
name iuh-iyakdyda, because referring to expiatory cere- 
monies ; and tliis name Sukriya, ‘ expiating ’ [probably 
rather ‘ illuminating ’ ?] belongs dso to the correspond- 
ing parts of the Samhita of the White Yajus, and even to 
the sdmans employed at these particular sacrifices. 

Another name of the White Yajus is derived from the 
surname Vajasaneya, which is given to Yajnavalkya, the 
teacher who is recognised as its author, in the supplement 
to the Vrihad-Aranyaka, just mentioned. Mahldhara, at 
the commencement of his commentary on the Samhita of 
the White Yajus, explains Vdjasaneya as a patronymic, 
“ the son of Vdjasani.” Whether this be correct, or whe- 
ther the word vdjasani is to be taken as an appellative, it 
at any rate signifies * “ the giver of food,” and refers to the 
chief object lying at the root of all sacrificial ceremonies, 
the obtaining of the necessary food from the gods whom 
the sacrifices are to propitiate. To this is also to be traced 
the name vdjin, “ having food,” by which the theologians 
of the White Yajus are occasionally distinguished.^'® Now, 
from Vajasaneya are derived two forms of words by which 
the Samhita and Brahmana of the White Yajus are found 

* In Mahd-Bhdrata, xii, 1507, the by ^ food '(anna) is probably purely 
word is an epithet of Kfislma. a scholastic one,] 

[Here also it is explained as above ; According to another explana- 

for the Rik, however, according to tion, this is because the Sun as 
the St. Petersburg Dictionary, we Hoi*se revealed to Ydjuavalkya the 
have to assign to it the meaning of aydtayd/mamrpjndni yajiinshi ; see 
'procuring courage or strength, Vishijiu-Purdna, iii. 5, 28; 'swift, 
victorious, gaining booty or prize/ courageous, horse,' are the funda« 
The explanation of the word vdja mental meanings of the word. 


cited, namely, Vdjasaneyaka, first used in the Taittiriya- 
Stitra of Apastamba and the Kdtfya-Siitra of the White 
Yajus itself, and Vdjasaneyinas* i.e., those who study the 
two works in question, first used in the An upada- Sutra of 
the Samaveda. 

In the White Yajus we find, what does not occur in the 
case of anv other Veda, that Samhita and Brahmana have 
been handed down in their entirety in two distinct recen- 
sions ; and thus we obtain a measure for the mutual rela- 
tions of such schools generally. These two recensions 
agree almost entirely in their contents, as also in the dis- 
tribution of them ; in the latter respect, however, there are 
many, although slight, (liscre])ancies. The chief difference 
consists partly in actual variants in the sacrificial formulas, 
as in the Brahmana, and partly in orthographic or orthoepic 
peculiarities. One of these recensions bears the name of 
the Kdnvas, the other that of the Mddhyamdinas, names 
which have not yet been found in the Sutras or similar 
writings. The only exception is the Prati^akhya-Siitra of 
the White Yajus itself, where there is mention both of a 
Kdnva and of the Madhyamdinas. In the supplement 
to the Vrihad-Aranyaka again, in the lists of teachers, a 
Kanvfputra (vi. 5 i) and a Madhyamdinayana (iv. 6, 2) at 
least are mentioned, although only in the Kanva recension, 
not in the other ; the former being cited among the latest, 
the latter among the more recent members of the respec- 
tive lists. The question now arises whether the two 
recensions are to be regarded as contemporary, or if one is 
older than the other. It is possible to adopt the latter 
view, and to consider the Kanva school as the older one. 
For not only is Kdnva the name of one of the ancient 
Rishi families of the Rigveda — and with the Rigveda this 
recension agrees in the ])eculiar notation of the cerebral d 
by I — hut the remaining literature of the White Yajus 
appears to connect itself rather with the school of the 
Madhyamdinas. However this may be,^^® we cannot, at 

* Occurs in the gana ^ ^aunakaJ vaka, a yellow {pingala) Kdnva, and 
[The Vdjasaneyaka is also quoted by a Kdnvvdyana, and also their pupils, 
lidtydyana.] are mentioned ; see L St,^ xiii. 417, 

The Mddhyaipdinas are not 444, The school of the Kanv 4 h 
mentioned in Pataipjali’s Mahd- Sauiiravasds is mentioned in the 
bhdshya^ but the Kdnvas, the Kd^- Kdfhaka, see on this /• St, ^ iii. 475 . 


aay rate, assume anything like a long interval between the 
two recensions ; they resemble each other too closely for 
this, and we should perhaps do better to regard their 
distinction as a geographical one, orthoepic divergencies 
generally being best explained by geographical reasons. 
As to the exact date to be ascribed to these recensions, it 
may be, as .has already been stated in our general survey 
(p. lo), that we have here historical ground to go upon — 
a thing which so seldom happens in this field. Arrian, 
quoting from Megasthenes, mentions a people called 
MaSiavScvoi, “ through whose country flows the river An- 
dhomati,” and I have ventured to suggest that we should 

understand by these the Madhyaindinas,'2o after whom one 

of these schools is named, and that therefore this school 
was either then already in existence, or else grew up at 
that time or soon afterwards.* The matter cannot indeed 
be looked upon as certain, for this reason, that niddhyam- 
dina, ‘ southern,’ might apply in general to any southern 
people or any southern sehool; and, as a matter of fact, 
we find mention of rnddhyar^iiia-Kauthumds, ‘ southern 
Kauthumas.’ f In fke main, however, this date suits so 
perfectly that the conjecture is at least not to be rejected 
offhand. From this, of course, the question of the time 
of origin of the White Yajiis must be strictly separated ; 
it can only be solved from the evidence contained in the 

andinthe Apastamba-Dharma-SAtra quotes in the case of the Yajurveda 
also, reference is sometiines made to the beginning of the Vijas. S., and 
a teacher Ka^va or Kdnva, Kanva not that of the Taitt. S. (or Kd^h.),] 
and Kd^va appear ^further in the + [Vindyaka designates his Kau- 
pravara section of Advaldyana, .and shitaki-Brdhmana-Bhdshya as Md» 
in Pdnini himself (iv. 2 . ifi), &c. dhyaTpdiria ~ Kauthnmdnugam ; but 

120 country of the does ho not here mean the two 

is situate precisely in the iniddie of schools so called (Mddhy, and 
that ‘Madhyade^a’ the limits of Kauth.) I They, in like man- 
which are given in the Pratijnd-Pa- ner, side by side in an inscription 
ridishta ; see my paper Ueber das published by Hall, Journal Am, Or» 

PratiirKf-Siiti^ay pp. 101-105. Soc.^ vi, 539 *] Kddikd (to 

* Whether, in that case, we may Pdn. vii, i. 94) a grammarian, M.d^ 
assume that all the works now com- dhyaipdini, is mentioned as a pupil 
prised in the Mddhyaipdina school oi Y (Vy^hrapaddrp vari- 
had already a place in this redaction ihiJuih) ; see Bohtlingk, Pd$iini, In- 
is a distinct question. [An interest- trod., p. 1 . On this it is to be re- 
ing remark of Muller’s, I/ist. A. S, marked, that in the Brdhmaijia two 
L., p. 453, points out that the Go- Vaiydghrapadyas and one Vaiydgh- 
patha-Brdbinnna, in citing the first rapadiputra are mentioned, 
words of the diflferent Vedas (i. 29), 


work itself. Here our special task consists in separating 
the different portions of it, which in its present form are 
bound up in one whole. Fortunately we have still data 
enough here to enable us to determine the priority or pos- 
teriority of the several portions. 

In the first place, as regards the Samhita of the White 
Yajus, the Vdjasaneyi-Samhitd, it is extant in both recen- 
sions in 40 adhydyas. In the Madhyamdina recension 
these are divided into 303 anuvdkas and 1975 Tcandikds. 
The first 25 adhydyas contain the formulas for the general 
sacrificial ceremonial ; first (i., ii.) for the new and full- 
moon sacrifice ; then (iii.) for the morning and evening fire 
sacrifice, as well as for the sacrifices to be offered every 
four months at the commencement of the three seasons ; 
next (iv.-viii.) for the Soma sacrifice in general, and (ix., x.) 
for two modifications of it; next (xi.-xviii.) for the con- 
struction of altars for sacred fires ; next (xix.— xxi.) for the 
sautrdmaniy a ceremony originally appointed to expiate 
the evil effects of too free indulgence in the Soma drink ; 
and lastly (xxii.-xxv.) for the horse sacrifice. The last 
seven of these adhydyas may possibly be regarded as a 
later addition to the first eighteen. At any rate it is cer- 
tain that the last fifteen adhydyas which follow them are of 
later, and possibly of considerably later, origin. In the 
Anukramanl of the White Yajus, which bears the name of 
Katyayana, as well as in a Pari^ishta ^22 to it, and subse- 
quently also in Mahfdhara’s commentary on the Samhita, 
xxvi.— xxxv. are expressly called a Khila, or supplement, 
and xxxvi.-xl., tiukriya, a name above explained. This 
statenaent the commentary on the Code of Ydjnavalkya 

(called Mitakshara) modifies to this effect, that the Bukriya 
begins at xxx. 3, and that xxxvi. i forms the beginning of 
an Aranyaka.* The first four of these later added adhyd- 
yas (xxvi.-xxix.) contain sacrificial formulas which belong 
to the ceremonies treated of in the earlier adhydyas, and 

A comprehensive but con- * That a portion of these^ last 
densed exposition of it has been books is to be considered as an Aran- 
cotntnenced in my papers, Znr yaka seems to be beyond doubt; 
KenntnxBs des vediBchen Opfevrituahj for xxxvii.-xxxix., in particular, 
5 i.,x. 217-292. this is certain, as they are explained 

^ * See my paper, Veher das Pra* in the Aranyaka part of the Brdh> 

(1872), pp. 102-105. ma^^a. 



must be supplied thereto in the proper place. The ten 
following adhyd/yas (xxx.— xxxix.) contain the formulas for 
entirely new sacrificial ceremonies, viz., the puruska-m.edha 
(human sacrifice), the sarva-medha (imiversal sacrifice), 
the pUri-medha (oblation to the Manes), and the pravargya 
(purificatory sacrifice).^^ The last adhydya, finally, has no 
sort of direct reference to the sacrificial ceremonial. It is 
also regarded as an Upanishad,* and is professedly designed 
to fix the proper mean between those exclusively engaged 
in sacrificial acts and those entirely neglecting them. It 
belongs, at all events, to a very advanced stage of specu- 
lation, as it assumes a Lord (ii) of the universe.i — Inde- 
pendently of the above-mentioned external testimony to 
the later origin of tliese fifteen adhydyas, their posteriority 
is sufficiently i)roved by the relation in which they stand 
both to tlie Black Yajus and to their own Brahmana, as well 
as by the data they themselves contain. In the Taittiiiya- 
Samhitd only those formulas appear which are found in 
the first eighteen adhydyas, together with a few of the man- 
tras belonging to the horse sacrifice ; the remainder of the 
latter, together with the mantras belonging to the sautrd- 
mani and the human sacrifice, are only treated of in the 
Taittirfya- Brahmana ; and those for the universal and the 
purificatory sacrifices, as well as those for oblations to the 
Manes, only in the Taittirfya- Aranyaka. In like manner, the 
first eighteen adhydyas are cited in full, and explained word 
by word in the first nine books of the Brahmana of the 
White Yajus ; but only a few of the formulas for the sau- 
trdmani, the horse sacrifice, human sacrifice, universal 

See rny essay, * Other parts, too, of the Vii- 

(ypfer hei den indcrn dcr vexlischen jas, S. have in later times been 
Zeit, in L i. 54, Ifl looked upon as Upanishads ; for ex- 

This translation of the word ample, the sixteenth book (^aia- 
fravwrgya is not a literal one (for rndriya), the thirty-first {Pui*usk(i- 
this see the St. Petersburg Diet., siikta)^ thirty-second {Tadeva)y and 
under root varj with prep, pm), the beginning of the thirty-fourth 
but is borrowed from the sense and book (Sivammkalpa). 
purpose of the ceremony in ques- f According to Mahidhara’s com- 
tion ; the latter is, according to mentary,it8polemicisdirectodpar- 
HaugonAit. Brdhm,, i. 18, p. 42, tially against the Bauddhas, that 
preparatory rite intended for provid- is, probably, against the doctrines 
ing the aacriticer with a heavenly which afterwards were called 
body, with which alone he is permit- khya. 
ted to enter the residenceof thegods/* 


aacrifice, and oblation to the Manes (xix.-xxxv.) are cited 
in the twelfth and thirteenth books, and that for the 
most part only by their initial words, or even merely 
by th(; initial words of the anuvdkas, without any sort 
of explanation; and it is only the tliree last adhydyas 
but one (xxxvii. — xxxix.) which are again explained 
word by word, in the beginning of the fourteenth book. 
In the case of the mantras, but slightly referred to by 
their initial words, explanation seems to have been con- 
sidered unnecessary, probably because they were still 

generally understood; we have, therefore, of course, no 
guarantee that the writer of the llraliinana had them 
before him in the form which they bear at jnesent. As 
to those mantras, on the contrary, which are not men- 
tioned at all, the idea suggests itself that they may not yet 
have been incorporated into the Samhita text extant when 
the Brahmana was composed. They are, roughly speak- 
ing, of two kinds. First, there are strophes borrowed 
from the Rik, and to be recited by the Hotar, which 
therefore, strictly speaking, ought not to be contained in 
the Yajus at all, and of which it is possible that the Brah- 
mana may have taken no notice, for the reason that it has 
nothing to do with the special duties of the Hotar ; e.y., 
in the twentieth, thirty-third, and thirty-fourth adhydyas 
especially. Secondly, there are passages of a Brahmana 
type, which are not, however, intended, as in the Black 
Yajus, to serve as an explanation of mantras preceding 
them, but stand independently by themselves ; e.y., in par- 
ticular, several passages in the nineteenth adhydya, and 
the enumeration, in tlie form of a list, of the animals to 
be dedicated at the horse sacrifice, in the twenty-fourth 
adhydya. In the first eighteen adhydyas also, there occur 
a few sacrificial formulas which the Brahmana either fads 
to mention (and which, therefore, at the time when it was 
composed, did not form part of the Samhita), or else cites 
only by their initial words, or even merely by the initial 
words of the anuvdkas. But this only happens in the 
sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth adhydyas, though 
here with tolerable frequency, evidently bcicause these 
adhydyas themselves bear more or less the character of a 
Brahmana. — With regard, lastly, to the data contained in 
the last adhydyas, and testifying to their posteriority, these 



are to be sought more especially in the thirtieth and 
thirty-ninth adhyd/yas, as compared with the sixteentli. 
It IS, of course, only the Yajus portions proper which can 
here be adduced, and not tlie verses borrowed from the Rik- 
Samhitd, which naturally prove nothing in t his connection. 
At most they can o^y yield a sort of measure for the time 
of their incorporation into the Yajus, in so far as they 
may be taken from the latest portions of the Rik, in which 
case the existence of these at that period would necessarily 
be presupposed. The data referred to consist in two facts. 
First, where^ in tlie sixteenth book lludra, as the god of the 
blazing fire, is endowed ''^th a large nuriiber of the epithets 
sub^quently applied to Siva, two very significant epithets 
are here wanting which are applied to him in the thirty- 
ninth book, viz., iidna and mahddeva, names probably 
indicating some kind of sectarian worship (see above, 

p. 45). Secondly, the number of the mixed castes given 

in the thirtieth is much higher than that given in the 

sixteenth book. Those mentioned in the former can hardly 

all have been in existence at the time of the latter, or we 

should surely have found others specified besides those 
that are actually mentioned. 

forty books of the Samhita, the sixteenth and 
ttotieth are those which bear most distinctly the stamp 

of the time to which they belong. The sixteenth book, on 
which, in its Taittirfya form, the honour was afterwards 
bestowed of being regarded as an Upanishad, and as the 
principal book of the Siva sects, treats of the propitiation 

j 24-26) by its enumeration 

and distinction of the many different kinds of thieves, 

robbers, murderers, night-brawlers, and highwaymen, his 

supposed servants, reveals to us a time of insecurity and 

violence : its mention, too, of various mixed castes indi- 

cates that the Indian caste system and polity were already 

fully developed. Now as, in the nature of things, these 

were not established without vigorous opposition from 

those who were thrust down into the low^er castes, and as 

this opposition must have manifested itself chiefiy in 

feuds, open or secret, with their oppressors, I am inclined 

to suppose that this Rudra book dates from the time of 

tliese secret feuds on the part of the conquered aborigines, 

as \vell as of tlie Vrdtyas or unbrahmanised Aryans, after 


their open resistance had been more or less crushed At 
such a time, the worship of a god who passes as the pro- 


The tliirtieth 

book, in enumerating the diflerent classes of persons to be 
dedicated at the purttsha-'medluf , gives the of most 
of the Indian mixed castes, whence we may at any rate 
conclude that the complete consolidation of the Brah- 
manical polity had then been effected. Some of the names 
here given are of peculiar interest. So, for example, the 
mdgadha, who is dedicated in v. 5 “ atikruah/dya.” The 


If we take atikimshta in the sense of “ great noise,” the 
most obvious interpretation of mdgadha is to understand 
it, with Malndhara, in its §pic sense, as signifying a 
minstrel,* son of a Vai^ya by a Kshatriya. This agrees 

excellently with the dedications immediately following (in 
V. 6), of the sdta to the dance, and of the iaildisha to song, 
though not so well, it must be admitted, with the dedica- 
tions immediately preceding, of the kliha (eunuch), the 
ayogd (gambler?), and the puiiAchald, (harlot). The 
mdgadha again appears in their com]3any in v. 22,t and 
they cannot be said to throw the best light upon his moral 
character, a circumstance which is certainly surprising, 
considering the position held by this cast(; in the epic; 
thougli, on tlie other hand, in India also, musicians, 
dancers, and singers (sailushufi) have not at any time 
enjoyed the best reputation. But another interpretation 
of the word mdgadha is possible.| In the fifteenth, the 


By the Buddhist author Ya- 
^omitra, scholiast of the Abhidhar- 
tnako 4 a, the Satarudriya is stated 
to be a work by Vyd-na against 
Buddhism, whence, however, we 
have probably to conclude only 
that it passed for, and >vas used as, 
a principal support for fc^iva worship, 
especially in its detached form as a 
separate Upanishad ; see Burnouf*3 
Introduction d VHistoire du Buddk- 
itmcy p. 568 ; L St., ii. 22. 

* How he comes by this name is, 
it is true, not clear. 

t Here, however, the kitava is 
put instead of the ayo^d, and be- 

sides, an express condition is laid 
down that the four must* belong 
neither to the Sddra nor to the 
Bitibuiapa caste. [By ayogd may 
also be meant an unchfiste woman ; 
see /. i. 76] 

t Sdyania, commenting on the 
corresponding passage of the Taitt. 
Bi-jihma^a (iii. 4. i), explains the 
word atikrusktdya by atinindita- 
devdya, “dedicated to the very 
Blameworthy as his deity” [in Rd- 
jeiidra Lilia Miira’s edition, p. 347] ; 
this ‘very Blameworthy,’ it is true, 
might also refer to the bad moral 
*'eputatiou of the minstrels. 



so-called Vrdtya book* of the Atharvu-Sainhita, the Vratya 
(i.c., the Indian living outside of the pale of Ijrahmanism) 
is brought into very special relation to the punicliali and 
the mdgadha; faith is called his harlot, the viitra (friend ?) 
his m^adha; and similarly the dawn, the earth (?), tlie 
lightning his harlots, the mantra (formula), hasa (scorn V). 
the thunder his mdgadhas. Owing to the obscurity of the 
Vratya book, the proper meaning of this passage is not 
altogether clear, and it is possible, therefore, that here also 
the dissolute minstrel might be intended. Still the con- 
nection set forth in the Sama-Siitras of Latyayana and 
Drahyayana, as well as in the corresponding passage of the 
Katiya-Siitra between the Vratyas and tlie magadhadvHya 
hrahmdbandhu^^ and the hatred witli wliich the Magadhas 
are elsewhere (see Eoth, p, 38) s] token of in the Atharva- 
Samhita, both lead us to interpret the mdgadha of the 
Vratya book as an heretical teacher. For the passages, 
also, which we are more immediately discussing, this inter- 
pretation vies with the one already given ; and it seems, 
in particular, to be favoured by the express direction in 
V. 22, that “ the mdgadha, the harlot, the gambler, and the 
eunuch ” must neither be ^ddras nor Brahmans, — an in- 
junction which would be entirely superfluous for the mdga- 
dha at least, supposing him to represent a mixed caste, but 
which is quite appropriate if the word signifies " a native 
of the country Magadha.” If we adopt this latter inter- 
pretation, it follows that heretical {i.e., Buddhist) opinions 
must have existed in Magadha at the time of the com- 
position of this thirtieth adhydya. Meanwhile, however, 
the question which of these two interpretations is the 
better one remains, of course, unsolved. — The mention of 
the nakshalradaria, “star-gazer,” in v. 10, and of the 

* Transiated by Aufrecht, /. Mdgadha — explained by Suyaria aa 

i. 130, ff, [The St. Tetersbiirg Diet., Magadhadeiot'panno brahmacJodrl — 
ft. v.y considers ‘the praise of the is contemptuously introduced by 
Vr-jltya in Atb. xv. as an ide«‘ilising the Sdtrakdra (probj^bly Baudlid- 
of the devout vagrant or mendicant yana ?) to T, S,, vii. 5 - 9* 4i asso- 
{parivrdjalca^ &c.) the fact of his ciation with ^puiikhall; see /. 67 ., 
being specially connected with the xiL 330. — That there were good 
puiUchali ihe mdgadha remains, Brahmans also in Magadha appears 
nevertheless, very strange, and even from the name Magadkavdd, which 
with this interpretation lea<ls us to is given to PriLtilvodhipnt.ra, the 
anrinise suggestions of ISuddhism.] second son of Hiasva M;lndukeya, in 

In the very sjme way, the Siirikh. Ar., vii, 14. 



yanaha, “ calculator,” in v. 20, permits ns, at all events, to 
conclude that astronomical, i.e., astrological, science was 
tlien actively pursued, It is to it that, according to Mahf- 
dhara at least, the “questions” repeatedly mentioned in v. 10 
relate, although Sayana, perhaps more correctly, thinks 
that tliey refer to the usual disputations of the Brahmans. 
The existence, too, of the so-called Vedic quinquennial 
cycle is apparent from the fact that in v. i § (only in 
xxvii. 45 besides) the five names of its years are enume- 
rated; and this supposes no inconsiderable proficiency in 
astronomical observation.^^^ — A barren wife is dedicated in 
V. 1 5 to the Atharvans, by which term Sayana understands 
the imprecatory and magical formulas bearing the name 
Atliarvan ; to which, therefore, one of their intended effects, 
barrenness, is here dedicated. If this be the correct ex- 
planation, it necessarily follows that Atharvan - songs 
existed at the time of the thirtieth book. — The names of 
the three dice in v. 18 (krita, tretd, and dvdpara) are 
explained by Sayana, commenting on the corresponding 
passage of the Taittirfya-Brahmana, as the names of the epic 
yugas, which are identical with these — a supposition which 
will not hold good here, though it may, perhaps, in the 
case of the Taittiriya-Brahmana.* — The hostile reference 
to the Charak^.charya in v. 18 has already been touched 
upon (p. 87).^^ 

In the earlier books there are two passages in particular 
which give an indication of the period from which they 
date. The first of these exists only in the Kanva recen- 
sion, where it treats of the sacrifice at the consecration of 
the king. The text in the Madhyamdina recension (ix. 
40, X. 18) runs as foUows : “ This is your king, 0 ye So and 
So,” where, instead of the name of the people, only the 
indefinite pronoun ami is used; whereas in the Kdnva 

_ Since swiftvatawra is here men- 
tioned twice, at the beginning and 
at the end, possibly we have here to 
do with a sexennial cycle even (cf. 
T. Bn, iii. lo, 4. l) ; see my paper, 
Die vediechen NaehrichUn von den 
Nakehatray iu 298 (1862), The 
earliest allusion to the quinquennial 
yuga occurs in the Rik itself, iii. 

55 - 18 (i. 25. 8). 

* Where, moreover, the fourth 
name, lcal% is found, instead of the 
dskanda given here [see /. Sir., i 

Sdyana on T, Br., iii. 4. 16, p. 
361, explains (!) the word by ‘teacher 
of the art of dancing on the point 
of a bamboo ; ’ but the vamanartin 
is introduced separately in v. 21 (T. 
Br., iii. 4. 17). 



recension we read (xi. 3. 3, 6. 3) : “ This is your king, 0 ye 
Kurus, 0 ye Panclialas.” * The second passage occurs in 
connection witii the horse sacrifice (xxiii. 18). The ina- 
hishi, or principal wife of the king, performing tliis 
sacrifice, must, in order to obtain a son, pass the night by 
the side of the horse that has been immolated, placing its 
ii 4 na on her upastha; with her fellow- wives, who are 
forced to accompany her, she pours forth her sorrow in 
this lament : “ 0 Amba, 0 Ambika, O Ambalika, no one 
takes me (by force to the home) ; (but if I go not of myself), 
the (spiteful) horse will lie with (another, as) the (wicked) 
Subhadra who dwells in Kampi'la.”'j‘ Kampila is a town 
in the country of the Panchalas. Subhadra, therefore, 
would seem to be the wife of the king of that district, J 
and the benefits of the aivamedha sacrifice are supposed 
to accrue to them, unless the mahishi consents voluntarily 
to give herself up to this revolting ceremony. If we 
are justified in regarding the mahishi as the consoii; of a 
king of the Kurus, — and the names Ambika and Amba- 
lika actually appear in this connection in the Maha- 
Bharata, to wit, as the names of the mothers of Dhrita- 

a. 0.0^1 u , — we might then with probability 

infer that there existed a hostile, jealous feeling on the 
part of the Kurus towards the Panchalas, a feeling which 
was possibly at that time only smouldering, but wliich 
in the epic legend of the Maha-Bharata we find had burst 
out into tlie flame of open warfare. However this may 
be, the allusion to Kampila at all events betrays that tlie 
verse, or oven the whole book (as well as the correspond- 

* Silya^a, on tho corresponding 
passage of the Brdhinana (v. 3. 3. 
Il), remarks that Baudhilyaiia reads 
enJui VO Bharatd rdjeti [thus 'J', B,, 
i. 8. 10. 2; T. Br., i. 7. 4. 2]. 
Apastamba, on the contrary, lets us 
choose between Bharat Kuravo^ 
PaildtdUiy Karapdrichdhl, or jand 
rdjdf accoiiling to the people to 
whom the king belongs. [The 
Kdth., XV. 7, has esha te janate 

t Tiie Brahmana of the White 
Vajus quotes only the beginning of 
til is verse ; ct>usequently the words 

subhadrikdTp, kdvipilavdsinim are 
wanting in it. 

5 ; As a matter of fact, we find in 
the Mahd-Bhilrata a Subliadrd as 
wife of Arjuna, the representative 
of the Paiiclullas ; on account of a 
Subhadrd (possibly on account of 
her abductif)!!, related in the Mahii- 
Biiiirata ?) a great war seems to 
have arisen, as appears from some 
words quoted several times by the 
scholiast on Piinini. Has he the 
authority of the Mahabhlshya for 
tliis / [the Malnlblutshya has nothing 
about it]. 


ing passages of the Taitt. Brahmana), originated in the 
region of the Panchdlas; and this inference holds »ood 
also for the eleventh book of the Kanva recension. '^We 
might further adduce in proof of it the use of the word 
arjuTUL in the Madhyamdina, and of 'p^ialguna in the 
Kanva recension, in a formula relating to the sacrifice 
at the consecration of the king (x. 21) : “ To obtain intre- 
pidity, to obtain food(, I, the offerer, ascend) thee(, 0 
chanot,) I, the inviolate Arjuna (Phalguna),” i.e., Indra, 
Indra-like. For although we must take both these words 
in this latter sense, and not as proper names (see I. St., 

i. 190^ yet, at any rate, some connection must be assumed 
between this use and the later one, where they appear as 
the appellation of the chief hero of the Pandus (or Pan- 
cluUas ?) ; and this connection consists in tlie fact that 
the legend specially applied these names of Indra* to 
that hero of the Pandus (or Panchdlas?) who was pre- 
eminently regarded by it as an incarnation of Indra. 

Lastly, as regfirds the critical relation of the ricJias in- 
corporated into the Yajus, I have to observe, that in general 
the two recensions of the Kdnvas and of the Mddhyam- 
dinas alvyays agree with each other in this particular, aiid 
Aat their differences refer, rather, to the Yajus -portions. 
One half of the Vdjasaneyi-Samhitd consists of richas, or 
verses; the other of yajumJd, i.e., formulas in prose, a 
measured prose, too, which rises now and tlien to a true 
rhythmical swing. The greater number of these HcJias 

T. S., vii. 4. 19. I, K^tb. 
IV. 8, there are two vocatives 
instead of tlie two accusatives ; be- 
aideSy we have suOkage for subhad- 
Tdfii. The vocative kdinpilavdsini 
18 explained by Siiya^ia, ^ O thou 
that art veiled in a beautiful gar- 


tichyate; see /. St,, xii. 312). 
Ihxs explanation is hardly justifi- 
able, and Mahidliara’s reference of 
the word to the city of Kdmpila 
must be retained, at least for the 
wording of the text which we have 

P Pratijnd- 

Pari^ishta, Kdrnpllya is given as the 

eastern limit of Madhyade^a ; see 

my PratijndsiUra, pp. 101-105, 

See V. S.j X. 21 ; the parallel 
passages in T. S., i. 8, 15, T, Bn, 

i. 7 - 9 * K*Hh., XV. 8, have no- 
thing of this. 

* The Brdhmana, moreover, ex- 
pressly designates a^^nna as the 
‘secret name * {guhyam nd?na) of In- 

dni[ii. I. 2. II, V. 4. 3. 7]. How is 

this to he understood ? 'J'he com- 
mentary remarks on it : arjuna 
iti hlndrasya vahasyam ndma | ata 
€Ta kh oln ( atp lUrt Pdndavamadk- 
game 2wvritm. [What is the 
reading of the Kitnva recension in 
these passages ? Has it, as in the 
Saiphitd, so hero also, not arjuna, 
but phalguua ?] 



recur in the Rik-Samhita, and frequently with consider- 
able variations, the origin and explanation of which I have 
already discussed in the introduction (see above, pp. 9, 10). 
Readings more ancient than those of the Rik are not found 
in the Yajus, or at least only once in a while, which results 
mainly from the fact that Rik and Yajus agree for the 
most part with each other, as opposed to the Saman. We 
do, however, find that verses have undergone later altera- 
tions to adapt them to the sense of the ritual. And 
finally, we meet with a large number of readings which 
appear of equal authority with those of the Rik, especi- 
ally in the verses which recur in those portions of the 
Rik-Samhita that are to be regarded as the most modern. 

The Vdjasaneyi-Samhita, in both recensions, has been 
edited by myself (Berlin, 1849-52), with the commentary 

of Mahidhara,^2i -written towards the end of the sixteenth 

century ; and in the course of next year a translation is 
intended to appear, which will give the ceremonial belong- 
ing to each verse, together with a full glossary.* Of the 
work of TTata, a predecessor of Mahidhara, only fragments 
have been preserved, and the commentary of Mddhava, 
which related to the Ka^va recension,^®^ appears to be 
entirely lost. Both were supplanted by Mahfdhara’s work, 
and consequently obliterated; an occurrence which has hap- 
pened in a similar way in almost all branches of Indian 
literature, and is greatly to be regretted. 

I now turn to the Brdhma'm of the White Yajus, the 
^atapatha-Brdhmana, which, from its compass and con- 
tents, undoubtedly occupies the most significant and im- 
portant position of all the Brahmanas. First, as to its 

For which, unfortunately, no tary (lately again by Roer in the 
sufficient manuscript materials were Bihliotheca Indica^ voL viii.) [and 
at my disposal ; see Muller, Preface vol, xv. — A lithographed edition of 
to vol. vi, of his large edition of the the text of the Vdjas. SaqihitS, with 
Rik, p. xlvi, sqq., and my reply in a Hindi translation of Mahidhara’a 
lAterarucheB Centralblatt, 1875, pp, commentary, has been published by 
S^ 9 y Qiriprasddavarman, mja of Beama, 

* fl'his promise has not been ful- 1870-74, in Besma]. 
filled, owing to the pressure of other Upon what this special state- 

labours.] The fortieth adhydya^ the ment is based I cannot at present 
I 4 opanishad, is in the Kflnva recen- show; but that Mddhava commented 
siou commented by ^aipkara ; it has the V. S, also is shown, for example, 
been tmuslated and edited several by the quotation in Mahidhara to 
times together with this commen- xiii. 45. 


extent, — this is sufficiently denoted by its very name, 
which describes it as consisting of 100 pathas (paths), or 
sections. The earliest known occurrence of this name is 
in the ninth vdrttika to rdn. iv. 2. 60, and in the gai\a 
to Pan. V. 3. 100 , both authorities of very doubtful* anti- 
quity. The same remark applies to the Naigeya-daivata, 
where the name also appears (see Benfey’s Sdmaveda, p. 
277). With the single exception of a passage in the twelfth 
book of the Maha-Bharata, to which I shall revert in the 
sequel, I have only met with it, besides, in the commen- 
taries and in the colophons of the MSS. of the work itself. 
In the Madhyamdina school the Satapatha-Brahmana con- 
sists of fourteen kdndas, each of which bears a special 
title in the commentaries and in the colophons : these 
titles are usually borrowed from the contents ; ii. and vii. 
are, however, to me inexplicable.^ The fourteen kdndas 
are together subdivided into 100 adhydyas (or 68 pra- 
pdtliaicas), 438 hrdhmanas, and 7624 kaijdikds}^ In the 
Kanva recension the work consists of seventeen 
the first, fifth, and fourteenth books being each divided 
into two parts ; the first book, moreover, has here changed 
places with the second, and forms, consequently, the second 
and third. The names of the books are the same, but the 
division mio prapdtlialcas is altogether unknown: the adhy- 
dyas in the thirteen and a half books that have thus far 
been recovered* number 85, the hrdhmanas 360, the kan- 
dikds 4965. The total for the whole work amounts, accord- 
ing to a list accompanying one of the manuscripts, to 104 
adhydyas, 446 brdhmxmas, 5866 kandikds. If from this 
the recension of the Kanva school seems considerably 

* The garjia is an dkritigana, and EJeapddikd^ that of the seventh Had- 
the siUra to which it belongs is, ac- tigkafa. 

cording to the Calcutta edition, not For statements disagreeing 

explained in the Mahdbhdsbya ; with this, which are found in tlie 
possibly therefore it does not belong MSS,, see note on pp. 1 19, 120. 
to the original text of Pd^ini. [The X Of the fourth book there exists 
vdrttika in question is, in point of only the first half ; and the third, 
fact, explained in the Mahdbhdshya thirteenth, and sixteenth books are 
(fol, 67^), and thus the existence of wanting altogether. [It is much to 
the name sotapatAa, as well as sAosA- be regretted that nothing has yet 
fipatha (see p. nq), is guaranteed, been done for the Kdnva recension, 
at least for the time when this work and that a complete copy has not 
was composed ; see /. St.^ xiii. ^43*] yet been recovered.] 

t The name of the second book is 



shorter than tliat of the Madhyamdinas, it is so only in 
appearance; the disparity is probably rather to be ex- 
plained by the greater length of the TcwnMMs in the for- 
mer. Omissions, it is true, not unfrequently occur. Tor 
the rest, I have no means of ascertaining with perfect 
accuracy the precise relation of the Brahmana of the 
Kanva school to that of the Madhyamdinas ; and what I 
have to say in the sequel will therefore relate solely to the 
latter, unless I expressly mention the former. 

As I have already remarked, when speaking of the 
Samhitd, the first nine Tcdndas of the Brahmana refer to 
the first eighteen books of the Samhita; they quote the 
separate verses in the same order * word for word, explain- 
ing them dogmatically, and establishing their connection 
with the ritual. The tenth kdnda, ■which bears the name 
of Agni-rahasya (“ the mystery of fire ”)> contains mystical 
legends and investigations as to the significance, &c., of the 
A'^arious ceremonies connected with the preparation of the 
sacred fires, without referring to any particular portions of 
the Samhita. This is the case likewise in the eleventh 
Mrwfa, called from its extent Ashtddhydyi, which contains 
a recapitulation of the entire ritual already discussed, with 
supplements thereto, especially legends bearing upon it, 
together with special particulars concerning the study of 
the sacred works and the provisions made for this pur- 
pose. The twelfth kdnda, called Madhyama, “ the middle 
one,” treats of prdyaichittas or propitiatory ceremonies 
for untoward events, either previous to the sacrifice, dur- 
ing, or after it ; and it is only in its last portion, where 
the Sautramam is discussed, that it refers to certain of the 
formulas contained in the Samhita (xix.-xxi.) and relating 
to this ceremony. The thirteenth kdindct, called Aivamedha, 
treats at some length of the horse sacrifice ; and then with 
extreme brevity of the human sacrifice, the universal sac- 
rifice, and the sacrifice to the Manes; touching upon the 
relative portions of the Samhita (xxii.-xxxv.) but very 
seldom, and even then very slightly. The fourteenth 
kd/nda, called Aranyaka, treats in its first three adhydyas 

* Only in the introduction does of the new moon and full moon sao 
a variation occur, as the Brdhmana rifices, which is evidently more cor* 
treats first of the morning and even- rect systematically, 
ing sacrifices, and not till afterwards 


of the purification of the fire,^®* and here it quotes almost 
in their entirety the three last books but one of the Sain- 
hita (xxxvii.-xxxix.) ; the last six adhydyas are ot a purely 
speculative and legendary character, and form by them- 
selves a distinct work, or Upanishad, under the name of 
VfiTiad-Aranyaka. This general summary of the con- 
tents of the several hdndas of itself suggests the conjec- 
ture that the first nine constitute the most ancient part 
of the Bnihmana, and that the last five, on the contrary, 
are of later origin, — a conjecture which closer investiga- 
tion reduces to a certainty, both on external and internal 
evidence. With reference to the external evidence, in the 
first place, we find it distinctly stated in the passage of 
the Malia-Bharata above alluded to (xii. ii734) 
complete ^atapatha comprises a Hahasya (the tenth kdnda), 
a SaviyTahcL (the eleventh kdyda), and a Paviicsha (the 
twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth kundas).^ hurther, in 
the vdTttika, already quoted for the name Satapatha, we 
also meet with the word sliashiipatha as the name of a 
work ; and I have no hesitation in .referring this name to 
the first nine kdmlas, w'hich collectively number sixty 
adhydyas. On the other hand, in support of the opinion 
that the last five kdndas are a later addition to the first 
nine, I have to adduce the term Madhyaina (“ the middle 
one"), the name of the twelfth kdnda, wliich can only be 
accounted for in this way, whether w'c refer it merely to 
the last three kdndas but one, or to all the five.* 

W* The pravnrgya concerns, ra- third adhydya (viss., of the *:««(/«.) 
iher, the lustration of the sacrificer so that xvi. and xvii. coincide, [A 
himself; see above note 124, p. 108, highly remarkable statement is 

It is found in the Pratijiid- in the MSS. of the Miidhyaipdnia 
ParKishta also, and along with it recension at v. 3. I. 14, to the epict 
the name asUipalka (!) ; iatapat/ia, that this point marks not only ton- 
on the contrary, is apparently want- dasyd WdkaTfi, with 236 kandtmSy 
ing there ; see iny essay on the Fra- but also, according to a marginru 
tijud-Sdtra, pp. 104, 105. gloss, iatapathasyd Wdhamy with 

* In the latter case a difficulty is 3^29 Jcvndikdii j see p. 497 of niy 

caused by the Kdnva recension, which editiim. As a matter of fact, the 
subdivides the last kdnda into two preceding kandikdi do amount to 
parts (xvi., xvii.) ; this division, this latter nnnil>er ; but if wc 
however, seems not to have been as the norm for the second h<^lf> 
generally received, since in the MSS. we are only brought down to xii. 7* 
of ^ipkara’s commentary, at least, 3. 18, that is, not even to the clohc 
the Upanishad (xvii.) is reckoned of the twelfth book ! point 

throughout as beginning with the which marks the exact half for the 



Now these last five kdndas appear to stand in the same 
order in which they actually and successively originated ; 
so that each succeeding one is to be regarj^ed as less 
ancient than the one that precedes it. This conjecture is 
based on internal evidence drawn from the data therein 
contained, — evidence which at the same time decides the 
question of their being posterior to the first nine kdndas. 
In the first place, the tenth kdnda still connects itself 
pretty closely with the preceding books, especially in its 
great veneration for handily a, the principal authority upon 
the building of altars for the sacred fires. The following 
are the data which seem to me to favour the view that it 
belongs to a different period from the first nine books. In 
i. 5. I, if, all the sacrifices already discussed in the pre- 
ceding books are enumerated in their proper order, and 
identified with the several ceremonies of the Agni-chayana, 
or preparation of the sacred fireplace. — Of the names 
of teachers here mentioned, several end in -dyana, a ter- 
mixiation of which we find only one example in the 
seventh, eighth, and ninth kd/rtdas respectively : thus we 
meet here with a Eauhinayana, Sayakayana, Vamaka- 
kshdyana (also in vii.), Eajastambayana, ^andilyayana (also 
in ix.), Satyayani (also in viii.), and the ^akayanins.— The 
Va6^a appended at the close {i.e., the list of the teachers 
of this book) differs from the general Vafina of the entire 
Brahma^ia (at the close of the fourteenth book) in not 
referring the work to Yajnavalkya, but to ^andilya, and 
also to Tura Kavasheya (whose ancestor Kavasha we find 
on the banks of the Sarasvatf in the Aitareya-Brahmana). 
The only tribes mentioned are the Salvas and Kekayas 
(especially their king, A^vapati Kaikeya), — two western 
tribes not elsewhere alluded to in the Brahmanas. — The 

present extent of the work (3812 it.) 
is at vi. 7, I, 19, where also the 
MSS. repeat the above statement 
(p. S 5 S)- — deserves special men- 
tion that the notation of the accents 
operates beyond the limits of the 
individual kandikds^ the accent at 
the end of a kandik^ being mo<lified 
by the accent of the first word of 
the next kar^tlikd. From this we 
might perhaps conclude that the 

marking of the accents is earlier in 
date than the division of the text 
into kan 4 ‘^kds. As, however, we 
find exactly the same state of things 
with regard to the final and initial 
words of the individual brahmanas 

Jmaer TAtcratW'zcitunyy 1875, P* 

314), we should also have to refer 
tl»e brdhmana division to a later 
date, and this is hardly possible]. 


legends here as well as in the four succeeding kdn<^ aio 
mostly of an liisiorical character, and are besides chiefly 
connected witli individual teachers who cannot have lived 
at a time very distant from that of the legends themselves. 
In the earlier kdndas, on the contrary, the legends are 
mostly of a mythological character, or, if historical, refer 
principally to occurrences belonging to remote anti(|uity; 
so that here a distinct difference is evident. — The tray% 
vidyd (the three Vedas) is repeatedly tliscussed in a very 
special manner, and the number of the ricJias is stated to 
be 12,000, that of the yajm-verses 8000, and that of the 
sdmans 4000. Here also for the first time appear the 
names Adhvaryus, Bahvrichas, and Chhandogas side by 
side ; * here, too, we have the first occurrence of the words 
npanisJutd (as sdra of the Veda), upanishaddm ddeidh, 
tmmdnsd (mentioned once before, it is true, in the first 
kdmia), adhid&Datam, adhiyajTUim, adhydtmam ; and 
lastly, here for the first time we have the form of address 
hhavdn (instead of the earlier bhagavdn). How and then 
also a ^loka is quoted in confirmation, a thing which occurs 
extremely seldom in the preceding books. ♦ Vurlher, many 
of the technical names of the sdfnans and sastras are men- 
tioned (this, however, has occurred before, and also in the 
tenth book of the Samhita) ; and generally, frequent refer- 
ence is made to the connection subsisting with the richas 
and sdmans, which harmonises with the peculiarly mys- 
tical and systematising character of the whole kdnda. 

That the eleventh kdnda is a supplement to the first 
nine is sufficiently evident from its contents. The first 
two adhydyas treat of the sacrifices at the new and full 
moon; the four following, of the morning and evening sacri- 
ficial fires, of the sacrifices at the three seasons of the year, 
of the inauguration of the pupil by the teacher {dchdrya), of 
the proper study of the sacred doctrines, &c. ; and the last 
two, of the sacrifices of animals. The Rigveda, Yajurveda, 
and Sdmaveda, the Atharvdngirasas, the anuidsanas, the 
vidyds, the vdkovdkya, the Uilmsapurdna, the ndrdsansis , 
and the gdthds are named as subjects of study. We have 

* Along with the ydtvivida» (those Mhndnsd, ad/iidaivata'gi, and 

skilful in witchcraft), sarpavidat adhydtmam (jccur several times in 
(serpent-charmers), devajanomdas, the earlier books, 



already met with this enumeration (see p. 93) in the 
second chapter of the Taitt. Aranyaka, although in a con- 
siderably later form,* and we find a similar one in the 
fourteenth hdnda,. In all these passages, the commen- 
taries, f probably with perfect justice, interpret these ex- 
pressions in this way, viz., that first the Sfunhitas are speci- 
fied, and then the different parts of the Brahmanas ; so that 
by the latter set of terms we should have to understand, not 
distinct species of works, but only the several portions 
respectively so designated which were blended together in 
the Brdhmanas, and out of which the various branches of 
literature were in course of time gradually developed. The 
terms amtAdsana (“ ritual precept ” according to Sayana, 
but in Vrihad-Ar., ii. 5. 19, iv. 3. 25, Kathopan., 6 . 15, 
“ spiritual doctrine ”), vidijd, “ spiritual doctrine,” and 
(jdtlid, “ stroplie of a song ” (along with iloha), are in fact 
so used in a few passages {gdtlid indeed pretty frequently) 
in these last five books, and in the Brahmanas or Upa- 
nishads of the Rik and Sainan. Similarly vdhrvdhja in the 
sense of “ disputation ” occurs in the seventh Jcdnda, and 
itikdsa at least once in the eleventh kdnda itself (i. 6 . 9). 
It is only the expressions purdna and ndrdAansis that do 
not thus occur ; in their stead — in the sense of narrative, 
legend — we find, rather, the terms dhhydna, vydkhydna, 
anvdkhydna, wpdkhydna. Vydkhydna, together with anu- 
vydkhyd/na and upavydkhydna, also occurs in the sense of 
“ explanation.” In these expressions, accordingly, we have 
evidence that at the time of this eleventh kdnda certain 
Samhitas and Brahmanas of the various Vedas, and even 
the Atharva-Samhita itself, were in existence. But, fur- 
ther, as bearing upon this point, in addition to the single 
verses from the songs of the Rik, which are here, as in the 
earlier books, frequently cited (by “ tad etad rishind ’hhy- 
andklam”), we have in the eleventh kdn^ one very special 
quotation, extending over an entire hymn, and introduced 
by the words “ tad etad ulUapratyiLktam panchadoAarcham 
Bahvrichdh prdhuh.” It is an interesting fact for the 
critic that in our text of the Rik the hymn in question 

■* From it has evidently originated + Here Sdyana forms an excep- 
a passage in Ydjuavalkya’s Code (i. tion, as he at least states the other 
45), ^vhich does not harmonise at all explanation also, 
with the rest of that work. 


(mand- x. 95) numbers not fifteen but eighteen richas. 

Single ilokas are also frequently quoted as confirmation. 

From one of these it appears that the care taken of horses 

in the palace of Janamejaya had at that time passed into 

a proverb ; this is also the first mention of this king. 

Rudra here for the first time receives the name of Maba- 
deva* (v. 3. 5). — In iii. 3. i, ft, special rules are for the first 

time given concerning the begging (bJd/csku) of the hrahvia- 
chdrins, &c., which custom is besides alluded to in the 
thirtieth book of the Sarnhita [v. 18]. — But what throws 
special light upon the date of the eleventh kdnda is the fre- 
quent mention here made, and for the first time, of Janaka, 
king (sainrdj) of Videha, as the patron of Yajnavalkya. 
The latter, the Kaurupanchala Uddalaka Aruni and his 
son Svetaketu, are (as in the Vnhad-Aranyaka) the chief 
figures in the legends. 

The twelfth kdnda alludes to the destruction of the 
kingdom of the Srinjayas, whom we find in the second 
kdnda at the height of their prosperity, and associated 
with the Kurus. This connection may still be traced here, 
for it seems as if the Kauravya Valhika Pratipiya wished 
to take their part against Chakra, their enemy, who was a 
native of the country south of the Eeva, and priest of King 
Dushtaritu of Dalapurushararajya, but that his efforts 
failed. — The names Varkali (?'.e., Vushkali) and Kaka 
Maudgalya probably also point to a later period of time ; 
the latter does not occur elsewhere except in the Vrihad- 
Aranyaka and the Taittiidyopanishad. — The Rigveda, the 
Yajurveaa, and the Samaveda are mentioned, and we find 
testimony to the existence of the Vedic literature generally 
in the statement that a ceremony once taught by Indra to 
Vasishtha and formerly only known to the Vasishthas — 
whence in former times only a Vasishtha could act as 
hrahman (high priest) at its performance — might now be 
studied by any one who liked, and consequently that any 
one might officiate as hrahman thereat.^®'^ — In iii. 4. i 
occurs the first mention of 'purusha Ndrdyana . — The name 
of Proti Kau^ambeya Kausurubindi probably presupposes 
the existence of the Panchala city Kau^ambi. 

*■ In the sixth jtdri^a he is still See on this /. St., x. 34, 35. 

ealled mdhAn deval}. 



The thirteenth M/rida repeatedly mentions purusha NA- 
rdyanyi. Here also Knvera Vai^ravana, king of the Kaksh- 
asas, is named for the first time. So, too, we find here 

the first allusion to the sAktas of the Rik, the anuvdkas * 
of the Yajus, the daiats of the Sainan, and the parvans of 
the Atharvdnas and Ailgirasas, which division, however, 
does not appear in the extant text of the Atharyan, A 
division into paTVdns is also mentioned in connection with 
the Sarpavidya and the Devajanavidyd, so that by these 
names at all events distinct works must be understood. 
Of Itihasa and Purana nothing but the name is given ; 
they are not spoken of as divided into parvam, a clear 
proof that even at that time they were merely understood 
as isolated stories and legends, and not as works of any 
extent.^ 3 * — While in the first nine books the statement 
that a subject has been fully treated of already is expressed 
by tasyokto handlmh [or, so ’sdv eva baudJmh, and the like], 
the same is expressed here by tasyoktam brAhmatuiTn ,. — The 
use in V. i. i8 of the words ekavacJiana and bahuvacJuina 
exactly corresponds to their later grammatical significa- 
tion. — This kdinda is, however, very specially distinguished 
by the number of gdthds, strophes of historical purport, 
which it quotes at the close of the account of the horse 
sacrifice, and in which are given the names of kings who 
celebrated it in earlier times. Only one of these g&thds 
appears in the Rik-Samhita {ma'nd. iv. 42. 8) ; the greater 
number of them recur in the last book of the Aitareya- 
Brahmana, and in the Maha-Bharata, xii. 910, ff., in both 
places with many variations.t The question here arises 
whether we have to regard these gdthds as fragments of 
more lengthy hymns, or if they must be looked upon 
merely as separate memorial verses. The fact that in con- 
nection with some of these names (if we take into account 

* Tbia term, however, occurs in 
the preceding kdndas also, e.g., in 
iz. I. I. 15. 

This is favoured also by the 
fact that they aro here attributed to 
fishermen and fowlers; with which 
may be compared the tale of the 
fishermaiden as mother of Vydsa, in 
the Mahd-Bhdrata. The whole state- 
ment recurs in almost identical 

ft ^ 

terms iu the IStokh. Sr., xvi. 2 ; Ak» 

val. X. 7, 

f The passages in the Mahd-Bhd- 
rata evidently connect themselves 
with the ^atapatha'Brdhmana, to 
which, as well as to its author Ydj- 
navalkya, and his patron Janaka, 
special regard is had in this book of 
the Mahd- Bhdrata. [See also SdAkh.| 
xvi, 8. 25-29. 32-] 



the Aitareya-Brahmana also) two, three, four, five, and 
even six verses ai-e quoted, and always in the same metre, 
in Mokas, certainly favours the former view. Only one ex- 
ception occurs wliere the first and fourth verses are ^lokas, 
but the second ti'ishf ubh, the third not being quoted at all ; 
it is, liowever, according to the commentary, understood by 
implication, so that this instance tells, perhaps, with a very 
special force in favour of the view in question. The ana- 
logy of the gdthds or Mokas of non-historic purport quoted 
elsewhere cannot bo brought forward in support either of 
the one view or of the other, for the very same imcertainty 
exists respecting them. Moreover, these verses repeatedly 
contain very old Vedic forms.* Again, their expressions 
of eulogy are for the most part very hyperbolical, and they 
might therefore perhaps be looked upon as the utterance 
of a still fresh feeling of gratitude; so that we should have 

to consider their origin as in part contemporary with the 
princes they extol; otherwise this circumstance does not 
readily admit of explanation.f A passage in the thirteenth 
kdnda itself directly favours this view (see I. St., i, 187). 
Among the kings here named the following deseiwe special 
mention; Bharata, son of Duhshanta and the Apsaras 
{^akuiitala, and descendant of Sudvunuia— SatanfkaJ Sdt- 
rajita, king of the Bharalas, and enemy of Dhritarashtra, 
kiner of the Ka^is — Purukutsa§ Aikslivaka — Para Atnara 

king of the Ka^is — Purukutsa§ Aikslivaka 

Hairanyanabha Kausalya 

but above all, Janamejaya 

Parikshita, with the Parikshitiyas (his three brothers), Bhi- 
masena, Ugrasena, and ^rutasena, who by means of the 
horse sacrifice were absolved from “ all guilt, all hrahma- 

hatyd.” The time when these last four lived cannot be con- 
sidered as very distant from that of the kdTvda itself, since 
their sacrificial priest Indrota Daivapa ^aunaka (whom the 
Mahd-Bharata, xii. 5595, also specifies as such) is once 
mentioned in it apparently as coming forward in opposi- 

* And names too: thus, the king Still this is both in itself a very 
of tho Paficbdias is called Kraivya, forced explanation, and besides many 
the explanation given by the Brd.h- of these verses are of purely histori- 
niana being that the Fahchdlas were cal purport, and contain no allusion 
* formerly* called Krivis, to the presents given to the priests, 

+ Unless these verses were merely X See Vdj. S., 34. 52 (not in the 
invented by priests in order to sti- Rik). 

nmlate kings to copy and emulate § See Kik, mand. iv. 42. 8. 
the liberality of their ancestors. 



tion to Bhallaveya ; while his own opinion, differing fi om 
that of the latter, is in turn rejected by Yajnavalkya. On 
account of the interest of the subject I introduce here an- 
other passage from the fourteenth book, from which we 
may gather the same result. We there find a rival of 

Yajnavalkya testing him with a question, the solution of 
wMch the former had previously obtained from a Gan- 
dharva, who held in his possession the daughter of Kapya 
Patamchala of the country of the Madras ; — the question, 
namely, “ Whither have the Parikshitas gone ? ” the solu- 
tion of which therefore appears to have been looked upon 
as extremely difficult. Yajnavalkya answers: “Thither 
where (all) a4vamedha sacrifice*s go.” Consequently the 
Parikshitas must at that time have been altogether 
extinct. Yet their life and end must have been stiU 

fresh in the memory of the people, and a subject of 
general curiosity.* It almost seems as though their “ guilt, 
their hrahviahatyd" had been too great for people to be- 
lieve tlrat it could have been atoned for by sacrifices were 
they ever so holy ; or that by such means the Parikshitas 
could have become partakers of the reward fixed for other 
less culpable evil-doers. It appears further as if the Brah- 
mans had taken special pains to rehabilitate their memory, 
and in this undoubtedly they were completely successful. 
Or was it, on the contrary, that the majesty and power of 
the Parikshitas was so great and dazzling, and their end so 
surprising, that it was difficult to believe they had really 
passed away ? I prefer, however, the former explanation. 

The fourteenth hdndAx,, at the beginning of its first part 
(that relating to ritual), contains a legend of a contention 
among the gods, in which Vislinu came off victorious, 
whence it became customary to say, “Vishnu is the 
heshtha (luckiest ?) of the gods.” This is the first time 
that we find Vishnu brought into such prominence; 
indeed, he otherwise only appears in the legend of 
the three strides, and as the representative of the 
sacrifice itself, — a position which is, in fact, ascribed to 

* The country of the M«a(lras lies 
in t]je north-west, and is therefore 
remote fnun the couiitry of the 
Kurus. According to the Malni- 
Illiurata, however, Mildil, second 

wife of IMndu and mother of the 
two youngest IMndavas, Naknla and 
Sahadeva, was a native of this re* 
gion, and rarfkshit also hafl a Ma 
<iravati to wife. 



him here also. Indra, as here related, afterwards strikes 
off his head in jealousy.^®® The second ])art of this kdnda, 
the Vrihad-Aranyaka, which consists of five pi'apdthdkas, 
or six adhydyas, is again divided into three kdndas, the 
Madhukdnda, adhy. i. ii. {pray. i. i-ii. 5) ; the Ydjnaval- 
kiya-kdnda, adhy. iii. iv. {pray. ii. 6-iv. 3) ; and the KMla- 
kdnda, adhy. v. vi. (jprap. iv. 4-v. 5). Of these three divi- 
sions, each succeeding oneappears to be later than thatwliich 
precedes it, and each closes with a Vaii^a or statement of 

the line of teachers, carried back to Brahman, the primeval 
source. The third hrdhmana of the Madhu-kanda is an 
explanation of three iloTcas prefixed to it, a form of 
which we have no previous example. The fifth {adhy. ii. 
i) contains, as has already been stated (p. 51), another 
recension of the legend related in the fourth adhydya of 
the Kaushftaky-Upanishad, of Ajata^atru, the king of 
Ka 4 i, who was jealous of Janaka’s fame as a patron of 
learning. The eighth {adhy. ii. 4) contains another re- 
cension of the closing legend in the Yajnavalkfya-kanda, 
of Yajnavalkya’s two wives, Maitreyi and Kdtyayaui, — 
this being the fii’st mention we have of these names. 
Here, as also in the eleventh kanda, we find an enumera- 
tion of the subjects of Vedic study, namely, Rigveda, 
Yajurveda, Sdmaveda, the AtJuirvdngirasas, itihdsa, pu- 
rdna, vidyds, upanishads, Mokas, sdiras, anuvydkhydtias, 
vydkhydnas.* The same enumeration recurs in the Yajna- 
valkfya-kanda {adhy. vi. 10). ^amkara and Dvivedagafiga, 
the commentators of the Vrihad-Aranyaka, both, like 
Sayana (on the eleventh kdnda), take the expressions 
itihdsa, &c., to mean sections in the Brahmanas. They 
are, in fact, as I have already pointed out (p. 122), used in 

1J» jhis is wrong. The gods send 
forth ants to gnaw the bow-string of 
Vishriu, who stands leaning on his 
bended bow ; the string, snapping 
•ud springing upwards, severs his 
head, from his body. The same 
legend recurs not only in the par- 
allel passage of the Taitt, Ar. (v, 
l), but also in the Paftch. Br., vii. 5. 
6 ; but whilst in the Sat Br. it, is 
related of Vishnu, the Taitt. Ar. 
tells it of Makba Vaishuava, and 

the Pahch. Br. of Makba alone (cf, 
also T. S., iii. 2. 4. i). In the 
Sataputba, Makba is only mentioned 
among the gods w^ho assembled, 
though, to be sure, he appears im- 
mediately before Vishnu. 

* The last five expressions take 
liere the j>]aoe of anukhayia^ vdho^ 
rdkyay mdriUansis, and ydthds in 
the eleventh book. 'I'he latter ar^ 
clearly the more ancient. 



this sense in the Brahmanas themselves. It is only in 
regard to s&tra* that I am unable to prove a similar use 
(though Dvivedagafiga pretty frequently calls certain 
sentences by the name of s&tra, e.g., i. 2. 18, 22, 3. i, &c.); 
and this terra raises a doubt whether the opinion of the 
commentators ought to hold good with reference to these ' 
passages also, and their time. The ninth (which is the 
last) hrdhnui'^a is evidently the one from which the 
Madhu-kd^^a received its name. It treats of the intimate 
relation existing between the four elements (earth, water, 
fire, air), the sun, the quarters of the heavens, the moon, 
lightning, thunder, dkd^a (ether), &c., on the one hand, 
and all beings on tlie other; this relation being set forth 
by representing the one as the madhu (honey) of the 
other. This doctrine is traced to Dadhyanch Atharvana, 
as is also, in fact, done in the Rik-Samhitd itself (L 1 16. 
12, 1 17. 22). In the beginning of the fourth Tcdnda of the 
^atap. Brdhmana also (iv. i. 5. 18) we find the madhu 
ndma hrdhma'imm mentioned expressly in this connection ; 
Sayana, too, quotes ^dtydyana (- Vdjasaneyati) in support 
of it. A very early date is thus guaranteed for the 
name at least, and probably also for the contents of this 
chapter.; though its form, of course, cannot make any 
pretension to i^h antiquity. The concluding V afi^ a here, 
as elsewhere, varies very much in the two schools ; that 
is, as regards the last twenty members or so back to Ydska 
and Asurdyana ; but from these upwards to the mythical 
fountain-heads the two schools generally agree. Asurd- 
yana himself (consequently, also Yaska, who is recorded 
as his contemporary) is here placed two stages after Asuri ; 
at the end of the Khila-kanda he is even designated as 
his pupil; Asuri, again, being set down as the pupil of 
Yajnavalkya. The list closes, therefore, with about the 
twenty-fifth member from the latter. It* must conse- 
quently have been continued long after the Madhu-kanda 
had been finally put into shape, since both the analogy of 
the Vafina contained in the last hi'dhmana but one of the 
Khila-kanda and the very nature of the case forbid the 

* The word sxXtra is found several supreme Brahman itself, which, like 
times here, but in the sense of a band, eiiibraoes and holds together 
* thread, band/ only, to denote the everything. 



conclusion that its redaction could have taken place so 
late as the twenty-fifth generation from Tdjnavalkya. The 
commentators never enter into any explanation of these 
Vafinas; doubtless, therefore, they too regarded them as 
supplements. The names themselves are naturpUy highly 
interesting, and, as far at least as the later stages are con- 
cerned, are probably strictly authentic. — The aim of the 
Ydjnavalkiya-kdnda is the glorification of Yajnavalkya, 
and it recounts how, at the court of his patron Jauaka, 
king of Videha, he silenced all the Brahmans* of the 
Kurupanchalas, &c., and gained his patron’s full confidence 
(like the corresponding legends in tlie twelfth hook of the 
Maha-Bharata). The legend narrated in the eleventh kdnda 
(vi. 3. I. ff.) may perhaps have been the model; at least 
tlie Yajnavalldya here begins in exactly the same manner, 
and gives also, almost in the same words, the account of 
the discomfiture and punishment of Vidagdha ^dkalya, 
which alone is given in the eleventh kdnda. It closes with 
a legend already given in the Madhu-kanda, hut with some 
deviations. The expressions 'pd'n,ditya, muni, and mauna, 
occurring in this kdnda, are worthy of special notice as 
being new^*° (iii. 2. i, iv. 2. 25); further, ekahansa, ira~ 
maiia, tdpasa (iv. i. 12, 22), pravrdjin (iv. 2. 25, where 
hhikshdehary a is recommended), and pratihuddha (iv. 2. 
17 ; the verb pratibudh occurs in this sense i. 2. 21), and 
lastly, the names chdnddla diod paulkasa (iv. i. 22). I am 
now of opinion t that it is to this Yajnavalkiya-kanda 
that the vdrttika to Panini iv. 3. 105 refers when it speaks 
of the Ydjnavalkdni hrdhma'^ni as not purdna^prokta, 
hut tvlyakAla, “ contemporaneous,” i.e., with Panini. The 
wording of the vdrttika does not necessarily imply that 

* Among them Aivala, the king’s hitA, viz., viii. 17, 14, cand x. 136. 
Hot<ar, Vida"dha ^dkalya^ who lost 2-5.” — First German edition, Errata, 
his life for his impertinence, Kahola Paolkasa is found also in V. S. 30. 
Kaushitakeya, and Gilrgi Vdcha- 17, 

knavi, who all four (the latter, at t Formerly I was of different 
legist, according to the Grihya-Siitra) opinion ; see I, SLj i. 57 - Many of 
may be looked upon as represeiita- the views there expressed — especi- 
tivea of the Rik, towards which ally pp. 161-232 — have here either 
therefore a kind of jealousy is here been further developed or modified 
unmistakably exhibited. after careful consideration of the 

word mttni occurs in various passages, as may be perceived 
the later portions of the Rik-Saqi- by comparison. 



fliese Brahmanas originated from Ydjnavalkya himself; 
consequently they might bear his name simply because 
treating of him. I prefer the latter view, for it appears to 
me very hazardous to regard the entire ^atapatha-Brah- 
mana, or even its last books only, as directly bearing the 
name of Yajnavalkya, — however fully it may embody his 
system, — or to set it down as contemporaneous with, or 
but little anterior to, Pdnini. In regard to the Yajnaval- 
Idya-kdnda, however, I have not the slightest hesitation in 
doing the latter — ^Finally, the Khila-kdvt.da, or last hdnda 
of the Vrihad- Arany aka, is uniformly described by the 
commentators as sxich a hkUa, or supplement ; and as a 
matter of fact it is clearly enough distinguished from the 
other hdndas. Its first adhydya — the fifth of the Vrihad- 
Aranyaka — is made up of a number of small fragments, 
which contain for the most part mystical plays upon words, 
of the most clumsy description. The second adhydya con- 
tains two hrdhmaTjm, parts of wliich, as I have already 
remarked (p. 71), recur in precisely the same form in the 
Chhandogyopanishad vii. i, 3. Of the third Irdhriuiim, 
which contains ritual injunctions, we also find another 
recension, ‘iMd. vii. 2. It concludes with a Vafina, not, 
however, in the form of a list, but of a detailed account. 
According to it,^the first author of the doctrine here taught 
was U dddlaka Aru^i, who imparted it to Y a j navalky a, h ere 
for the first time called Vdjasaneya ; * his pupil was Madh- 
uka Paingya, from whom the doctrine was transmitted to 
Chiida Bhagavitti, then to Janaki Ayahsthuna, and lastly 
to Satyakama Jabala. The name of the latter (a teacher 
often alluded to in the Chhandogyopanishad) is in fact 
borne in later works by a school of the White Yajus, so 

On this subject compare Gold- nini. Although he here counts 
stiicker’s detailed discussion in his Yajnavalkya among the purdnas^ 
Pdnini, p. 132—140, and my special ‘ancients/ — and this interpretation 
rejoinder, /, St, v. 65 - 74 » xiii. 443, is required by the wording of the 
444, /, Str., ii. 214. According to vdrttika, — yet the KiisikA, on the 
these expositions, the author of the contrary, expr* ssly declares him to 
vdrttikas must, on the one hand, have be “ not ckirakdlaP 
considered the Tdjnavalkdni Brdh- * In the Ydjnavalkiyakdnda Ud- 
mandni as originally promulgated daikaAnmi is, like the other Brah- 
(f}rokta) by Ydjnavalkya ; but, on mans, silenced by Ydjnavalkya, no 
the other hand, he must also have mention being made of his being 
looked upon the recension then ex- the preceptor of the latter, 
tant as contemporaneous with P4- 


that we might perhaps ascribe to him the final adjustment 
of this doctrine in its existing form. The fourth and last 
hrdhrnana of this adhydya is, like the third, surprising, 
from the nature of its contents, which, consisting as they 
do of the rites to be observed before, and at the time of, 
coitus, as well as after the birth of a son, more properly 
pertain to a Grihya-Siitra. It too clost.s with a Van^a,* 
this time of quite unusual length, and distinguished, as far 
as the more recent members are concerned, by this peculi- 
arity, that their names are formed by the addition of putra 
to the mother’s name (see above p. 71), and that both 
parts of the names are accentuated. Asuri is here called 
the pupil of Yajnavalkya, and the latter the pupil of 
Uddalaka. Then, having passed through ten more stages 
and arrived at Aditya, the sun-god, as the original author, 
we find tlie following words as the close of the whole 
B r a h m a n a : dditydni ’mdni 4 ukldni yajUnshi Vdjasaneyena 
YdjnavalhyeTid "khydyante, ‘ these White Yajus-texts ori- 
ginating t from Aditya are transmitted by Vajasaneya 
Yajnavalkya.’ According to ^ainkara and Dvivedagaiiga, 
this Vairia does not refer to the Khila-kanda, but to the 
entire Pravachana, the entire Veda (f.e., the White Yajus). 
This view is at all events favoured by the fact that the 
Vah^a at the close of the tenth book (the only one which 
appears in the whole of the ^atapatha-Brahmana, besides 
those of the Madhu-kanda, Yajnavalkiya-kanda, and Khila- 
kdnda)J evidently refers to this Vah^a, and presupposes 
its existence when at its commencement it says : samdnam 
d Sdmjivipttirdt, ‘ up to Samjfvfputra the teachers are the 
same.’ For, ascending from this Samjfviputra, there are 
still in this Vah^a three steps up to Y'ajnavalkya, while in 
the tenth book, as before remarked, the doctrine is not 
traced up to the latter at all, but from Samjiviputra 
through five steps to handily a, und through two more to 
Tura Kava3heya.§ — This latter circumstance suggests to 

* In the EL^va recension the 
Vaftdas invariably form separate 

+ Or : ‘ these "White Yajus-texts 
ere named by Vdjasaneya Ydjnaval- 
kya as originating from Aditya' (?), 
t The Ed^va recension adds this 

Va!i. 4 a here too at the close after 
the words : Ydjnavalkyend "khyd- 

§ Who is quoted in the Aitar 
Brdhinana as contemporaneous with 
Jauaroejaya (as his sacrificial priest)! 

see /, St,, i. 203, note. 



US, moreover, the possibility of yet another division of the 
Satapatha-Brdhmana with reference to the origin of the dif- 
ferent hd'ndas. For in the first five and the last four Jedndas 
the name of Yajnavalkya meets us exclusively, and very fre- 
quently, as that of the teacher whose opinion is appealed to 
as the decisive authority, whose system consequently is in 
any case there set forth * Further, if we except the Yajna- 
valkfya-kdnda and the gdthds in the thirteenth kdnda, races 
settled in eastern or central Hindustan are the only ones 

e Hi. t ese viz., the Kurupanchalas, Ko- 

salavidehas, ^viknas, and Srinjayas. Once only the Pra- 
chyas (eastern tribes) are opposed to the Vahlkas (western 
tribes); again there is once mention made of the Udichyas (in- 
habitants of the north); and lastly, the (southern) Nishadhas 
are once alluded to in the name of their king, Hala Naisha- 
dha (or, as he is here called, Naishidha). 
remaining kdndas — the sixth to the tenth- 


From this the 
differ palpably 

They recognise ^andilya as the final authority f 
instead of Yajnavalkya, whom they do not even name ; 
neither do they mention any but north-western races, 

viz., the Gandharas with their king Hagnajit, the Salvas, 

and tlie Kekayas.J May not the above-mentioned Vaii^a 
apply not only to the tenth book, but to these five kdndas ? 
Since the latter treat specially of the fire-ritual, of the 
erection of the sacred fire-altars, their possible north- 

* The fact that this is so clear 
may easily account for the circum- 
stance that the Pnntnas have hero 


for once a statement in conformity 
witli fact, as they cite Ydj naval kya 
as the author of tlie White Yajus. 
AVo may here mention that the name 
of Ydjnavalkya occurs nowhere else 
in Vedic literature, which rtiight be 
explained partly by the difFerence of 
locality, partly by liis having edited 
the White Yajus after the text of 
the other Vedas had b-*en fixed ; 
though the latter reason seems in- 
sufficient, since other teachers of 
the White Yajus are mentioned fr<*- 
qneutly in la^^er A^edic literature, as, 
for instance, Aruni, Svetaketu, Satya- 
kiitua Jabdla, &c., who are cither 
his contemporaries, or belong to even 

later times. Besides, liis patron Ja- 
naka is mentioned at least in the 
Kaushihikv - Upanishad. [In two 
sections of the Kausliltaki-, or, 
Sankliilyana-Aranyaka, which, how- 
ever, are clearly of very late origin, 
Yajnavalkya himstdf is actually 
cited (9. 7 and 13. i) ; but these 
pJissages are themselves direct quo- 
tations from Satap. Br. xiv, — In the 
Gopatha-J 3 r,, which shows so many 
special poiius of relationship to the 
Satapatha, Yjljnavalkya is never 

+ So do the Sama-Sutras ; 
dilya is mentioned besides in the 
Chhfindogyop. only, 

X The legend concerning tlu .nc re. 
curs in the Chhdndogyop. 


western origin might be explained by the fact that the 
doctrine upon this subject had, though differing from that 
of the Persa- Aryans, been kept particularly pure in the 
north-west owing to the proximity of this latter people.* 
However this may be, whether the north-western origin of 
the doctrine of these five Tedndas be well founded or other- 
wise,^^^ they at any rate belong, in their present form, 
to the same period as (the tenth possibly to a somewhat 
later period than) the first five Mndas. On this point the 
mention of Aruna Aupave^i, Aruni, ^vetaketu Aruneya, 
and of Indradyumna (in the tenth book), as well as the 
frequent reprehension of tlie Charakadhvaryus, is decisive. 
That the various parts of the Brahmana were blended to- 
gether by one arranging hand is evident in particular 
from the repeated occurrence of phrases intimating that a 
subject has already been treated of in an earlier part, or is 
to be found presented more in detail in a later part. A 
closer investigation of the various instances where this 
occurs has not as yet been within my power. 

The number of deviations in regard to ritual or readings 
cited in the Brahmana is very great. To tliese regard is 
had here and there even in the Samhita itself, two differ- 
ent mantras being quoted side by side as equally good. 
Most frequently the citation of such variations in the 
Brdhmana is introduced by the words ity eke, or tad dliuh ; 
yet pretty often the names of individual teachers are also 
mentioned, who must here, in part at least, be looked upon 
as representing the schools which bear their names. Thus 
in addition to those already named we have: Asliadha 
Savayasa, Barku Varslina, Aupoditeya, Panchi, Takshau, 
Jivala Chailaki, Asuri, Madhula, Kahoda Kaushitaki, Var- 
shnya Satyayajna, Satyayajni, Tandya, Budila A^vatara^vi, 

* Ought we to bring the 
yanins into direct connection with 
tlie latter? But then what would 
become of the connection between 
Sikilyanya (in the Maitrdy ini-Upa- 
nishad) and the 6dkyas? (!), 

See on this my detailed <lis- 
cussion in L 5if., xiii. 265-269, where 
I call special attention to various 
differences in point of language be- 
tween books L-y. and vi.-ix. 

Tlie stroiig con.mire passed up- 
on tlie re.-identson .seven western 
rivers in ix. I. 24 uiust be ascribed 

to this * arranging liiiinl ; ’ gee 1 . 

xiii. 267. — That the White Yajns 
was arranged in Ciutern Hiudustdn, 
seems to be m oved bv tbe slateinenta 
in the Pratijud-Parisishti re.«pecting 
the extent of the Madliyadesa ; sea 
lily essay on tbe Pratijnd-Sdtra, pp, 

lOi, 105. 



Rdma Aupatasvini, Kaukiista, Mahitthi, Mudimbha* Au- 

danya, Saumdpaii Manntantavyau, Satyakama Jabala, Sai- 
lali, &c. Besides the Charakadhvaryus, Bhallaveya iii par- 
ticular is regularly censured, from which I conclude, as 
already stated (p. 95), that the Bhallavi-Brdhmana should 
be reckoned among those of the Black Yajus. By the 
“ eke'' where these are found fault with, we should pro- 
bably also understand (e.g., once for certain in the first 
kAnda) the adherents of the Black Yajus. Once, however 
(in the eighth hAixdd), a reading of the Kdnva school is 
quoted by “eke” and disputed. How the matter stands 
in the Brahmana of the latter as to this passage, whether 
it finds fault with the reading of the Madhyamdina school, 
I am not able to say. A collection of passages of this 
kind would naturally be of peculiar interest. 

The legends interspersed in such numbers throughout 
the Brahmana have a special significance. In some of 
them the language is extremely antiquated, and it is pro- 
bable therefore that before their incorporation into it they 
possessed an independent form. The following deserve 
special mention from their being treated in detail, viz., the 
legends of the Deluge and the rescue of Manu; of the 
emigration of Videgha Mathava from the Sarnsvatf to the 
Sadanira in the country of the Kosala-Videhas ; of the 
restoration to youth of Chyavana by the Alvins at the 
request of his wife Sukanyd, the daughter of ^aryata Ma- 
nava ; of the contest between Kadru and Suparnf ; of the 
love and separation of Purdravas and Urva^i, and others. 
Many of them reappear as episodes in the epic, in a 
metrical garb, and often very much altered. It is 
obvious that we have h(;re a much more intimate con- 
nection with the epic than exists in the other Brah- 
manas. The names Valhika, Janamejaya, and Nagnajit 
have the most direct reference to the legend of the Maha- 
Bharata; as also the names already discussed above in 
connection with the Samhita, Amba, Ambika, Ambalika, 
Subhadra, and the use there made of the words arjuna and 
pi lal (j nna . In any case, we must look for the explanation 

* Compare the Mu^ibhais in the 
Aitar. Br. — Of the above, only Bu- 
4ila, the Saumilpau, Satyakdma, 

Miidhuki (or Paingya), and Kaushl- 
taki are uieutiouod elsewhere. 



of this in the circumstance, that this Brdhmana substan- 
tially originated and attained its final shape among the 
tribes of the Kurupanchdlas and the neighbouring Kosala- 
Videhas. The king of the latter, Jan^a, who is repre- 
sented in it as the chief patron of the sacred doctrine it 
embodies, bears the same name as the father of Sfta and 
father-in-law of Rama, in the Ramayana. This is, how- 
ever, the only point of contact with the Ramayana legend 
which can here be traced, and as the name Janaka seems 
to have belonged to the whole family, it also virtually dis- 
appears. Nevertheless I am inclined to identify the father 
of Sita with this exceptionally holy Janaka, being of 
opinion that Si'ta herself is a mere abstraction, and that 
consequently she had assigned to her the most renowned 
father possible. As regards the special relation in which 
the Brahmana stands to the legend of the Maha-Bharata, 
Lassen, it is well known, takes as the fundamental feature 
of the latter a conflict between the Kurus and the Pan- 
chdlas, ending in their mutual annihilation, the latter being 
led by the family of the Pandus, who came from the west. 
Now' at the time of the Brahmana, w'e find the Kurus and 
the Panchalas still in full prosperity,* and also united in 
the closest bonds of friendship as one people.f Conse- 
quently this internecine strife cannot yet have taken place. 
On the other hand, in the latest portions of the Brahmana, 
we find the prosperity, the sin, the expiation, and the fall 
of Janamejaya Parikshita and his brothers Bhimasena, 
Ugrasena, and ^rutascna, and of the wdiole family of the 
Parikshitas, apparently still fresh in the memory of the 
people and discussed as a subject of controversy. In the 
Maha-Bharata boundless confusion prevails regarding these 
names. Janamejaya and his brothers, already mentioned, 
are represented either as great-grandsons of Kuru, or else 
as the great- gi’andsons of the Panduid Arjuna, at whose 
snake-sacrifice Vai^ampayana related the history of th 

* Tiiough certainly in tiie last por- f At loa^t I am not able to offer 
tions of the Br. the Kosali-Videbas another explanation of the word 
Beeni to have a certain preponner- Kurupancliala ; it is, moreover, note* 
ance ; and there had perhaps existed worthy that no name of a king of the 
as early as the time of the Sarphitd is ever mentioned, 
(see p. 1 14) a certain rivalry between Such names are quoted only for 
the Kurus and PaAchdloa. Kauravya* or Pdhchala- kings. 



great struggle between the Kurus and the Pandus. Adopt- 
ing the latter view, which appears to be the better war- 
ranted, from the fact that the part of the Mahd-Bharata 
which contains it is written in prose, and exhibits a pecu- 
liarly ancient garb, the supposed great internecine conflict 
between the Kurus and the Pahchdlas, and the dominion 
of the must have been long past at the time of 

the Brdhmaija. How is this contradiction to be explained ? 
That something great and marvellous had happened in the 
family of the Pdrikshitas, and that their end still excited 
astonishment at the time of the Brdhmana, has already 
been stated. But what it was we know not. After what 

has been said above, it can liardly have been the overthrow 
of the Kurus by the Panchalas ; but at any rate, it must 
have been deeds of guilt ; and indeed I am inclined to regard 
this as yet unknown ‘ something ’ as the basis of the legend 
of the Maha-Bharata,^^ To me it appears absolutely neces- 
sary to assume, with lessen, that the Pandavas did not 
originally belong to the legend, but were only associated 
with it at a later time,^*® for not only is there no trace of 
them anywhere in the Brahmanas or Sutras, but the name 
of their chief hero, Arjuna (Phalguna), is still employed 

^atapatha-Brdhmana (and 


as originally identical with Indra 
of any real existence. Lassen fu 
concludes, from what Meerasthenf 


/ X 

liter JJavha'ia 

also from other accounts in Curtius, Pliny, and Ptolemy,* 
that at the time when Megastheues wrote, the mythical 
association of Krishna (?) with the Pandavas already ex- 

See Indian Antiquary, ii. 58 
(1873). I may add the following, as 
it possibly has a bearing here, Vrid- 
dh.adyumna AbhipraUiima (f^ee Ait, 
Br., iii. 48) was cursed by a Brahman 
on account of improper sacrifice, to 
the effect that : Hmam evaprati sa- 
maram Kuravafy Kurukttketrdch cAyo- 
shyania iti, xv. 16. 12 (and 

so it came to pass). For the glorifica- 
tion of the ^uravya king Parikshit 
the four verses, Sdflkb. Sr., xii. 17, 

1-4 (Ath., XX. 127. 7-10), serve; 
although in Ait. Bn, vi. 22 (Sdnkh. 
Bn, XXX. 5), they are referred to 
‘fire ’or ‘year;’ but see Qopatha- 
Bn, xi. 12, Another legend re- 
specting Jaiiaincjaya Pdrlkshita is 
found in the Gopatlia-Bn, ii, 5. 

See my detailed discussion of 
this in /. SL, ii. 402-404. 

* Curtius and Pliny wrote in the 
first, Arrian and Ptolemy in the 
second century a.D. 


fated. But this conclusion, although perhaps in itself pro- 
bable, is at least not certain ; * and even if it were, it would 
not prove that the Pandavas were at that time already 
associated with the legend of the Kurus. And if we have 
really to assign the arrangement of the Madhyarndina re- 
cension (see p. 106) to about the time of Megasthenes, it 
may reasonably be inferred, from the lack of all men- 
tion of the Pandavas in it, that their association witli 
the Kurus had not then been established ; although, strictly 
speaking, this conclusion has weight not so much for the 
period when the arrangement of the work actually took 
place, as for the time to which the pieces aiTanged belong. 

As with the epic legends, so also do we find in the 
Satapatha-Brahmana several points of contact with the 
legends of the Buddhists, on the one hand, and with the 
later tradition concerning the origin of the Samkhya doc- 
trine, on the other. First, as regards the latter. Asuri, the 
name of one of its chief authorities, is at the same time the 
name of a teacher frequently mentioneiin the ^atapatha- 
Brahmana. Again, though only in the Yajnavalki'ya-kanda, 
we have mention of a Kapya Patamchala of the country of 
the Madras as particularly distinguished by his exertions 
in the cause of Brahmanical theology ; and in his name we 
cannot but see a reference to Kapila and Patamjali, the 
traditional founders of the Samkhya and Yoga systems. 
As regards the Buddhist legends, the ^akyas of Kapilavastu 
(whose name may possibly be connected with the ^aka- 
yanins of the tenth Mrirfa, and the Sakayanya of the 
Maitrayana-Upanishad) called themselves Gautamas, a 
family name which is particularly often represented among 
the teachers and in the lists of teachers of the Brahmana. 
It fa, moreover, the country of the Kosalas and Videhas that 
fa to be looked upon as the cradle of Buddhism. — ^veta- 
ketu (son of Aruni), one of the teachers most frequently 
mentioned in the ^atapatha- Brahman a, is with the Bud- 
dhists the name of one of the earlier births of ^kyamuni 

* The incest of Hercules with and Arjuna occur together in 
Hapdala must certainly be traced iv. 3. 98, catuiot be considered as a 
to tiie incest of Prajdpati and his proof of their being connected with 
daughter, so often touched ou in each other; see LJSL, xiii. 349, ff.] 
the Brdhma^as. [That Vdsudeva 



(see Ind. Stud., ii. 76, note). — That the mdgadlia of the 
Samhita may perhaps also he adduced in this connection is 
a point that has already been discussed (pp. 1 1 1 , 1 1 2). — The 
words arhard (iii. 4. i. 3, ff.), iramatui (Vrih. Ar., iv. i. 22, 
as well as Taitt. Ar., ii. 7, beside tdpasa), mahdJyrdhmana * 
(Viih. Ar., ii. i. 19. 22), and praiihvddha, although by no 
means used in their Buddhistic technical sense, yet indi- 
cate how this gradually arose. — ^The name ChelaJia also in 
the Brahmana may possibly have some connection with 
the peculiarly Buddhistic sense attached to the word chela. 
Ajataiatru and Brahmadatta,t on the contrary, are probably 
but namesakes of the two persons designated by the Bud- 
dhists under tliese names as contemporaries of Buddha (?). 
The same probably also applies to the Vatsiputriyas of the 
Buddhists and the Vatsiputras of the Vrih. Arany. (v. 5. 
31), although this form of name, being uncommon, perhaps 
implies a somewhat closer connection. It is, however, the 
family of the Katyayanas, Katyayaniputras, which we find 
represented with special frequency among the Buddhists 
as well as in the Brahmana (although only in its very 
latest portions). We find the first mention J of this name 
in the person of one of the wives of Yajnavalkya, who is 
called Katyayanf, both in the Madhu-kanda and the 
Yajnavalldya-kanda ; it also appears frequently in the lists 
of teachers, and almost the whole of the Siitras beloncr- 


* Bosicle which is found see /. St, v. 6i, 63, 64, A Kdtyd- 

even earlier, i. 5. 3, 21, ii. 5. 4. 9. yaniputra Jdt.i'ikarnya is quoted in 
+ With the surname Chaikitiineya theSankii. Ar., viii/io. Pataqij;di in 
Vrih. Ar. Mildhy., i. i, 26. — In the Mahfthhdshya mentions several 
Mahit-Bhitrata, xii. 5136, 8603, a Kiltyas (/. Sty\\ii. 399, 407), and 
Pdnchdb/o rdjd named Brahmadatta indeed the vd7*Uikakdra directly be- 
is mentioned, who reigned in Kdin- longs to this family. In no other 
pilya. — Chaikitdneya is to be distin- Vcdic texts have I found either the 
giiished from Cliaikitdyana in the Katas or the Kdtyas, Kdtydyanas, 
Ghhandogyopan,, iii. 8, — [On a curi- excej>tiug in the TTrat’am^section ap»- 
ous coincidence of a legend in the pendedattheendoftheAdvaldyana- 
Vrihad-Ar. with a Buddhist legend, ^rauta-Sutra, xii, 13-15, in which 
see /. St., iii. 156, 157-1 the Katas and the patronymic, 

, i In the tenth book of the Taitt. Kdtya, are mentioned several times. 
Ar., Kdtydyana (instead of oni) is a The Kuru-Katas are cited in the 
name of Durgd ; on this use see /. r/ana * Garr/a/ and the family of the 
St^ ii. 192 [xiii. 422]. — In the Gctna- Katas seems therefore to have been 
pdtka to Pdnini, Kdtydyana is want- specially connected with the Kurus ; 
ing. [But Kdtydyaiii is to be gath- see /. St, i. 227, 228.] 

•red from Pdnini himself, iv. i. i8 ; 




South, the imperial coins probably circulated at the ports as 
English sovereigns now circulate on the continent of Europe. 
In the North, large quantities of the Roman gold were probably 
melted down and reissued. The Kushan coins, although 
Roman aurei in weight, are mainly Oriental in style, and not 
merely slavish copies of Roman models. The constant reverse 
device on the pieces issued by Kadphiscs II is the figure of 
the Indian god Siva, attended by his sacred humped bull. 
The legends, which record the royal name and titles, are 
bilingual, in accordance with Bactrian practice. The obverse 
legend is inscribed in the Greek language and character, but 
the language of the reverse legend is a form of Prakrit, or 
vernacular Sanskrit, and the character is a form of the 
KharoshthI alphabet, read like Hebrew from right to left. 
Kadphises II also struck an extensive copper currency, similar 
in general style to his gold coinage. . The copper coins, 
which commonly show signs of long use, are found in large 
quantities as far east as Benares. 

The Indo-Roman coinage of the Kushan dynasty, commonly 
called Indo-Scythian, marks an epoch in the numismatic 
history of India. The Kushan kings, while retaining in their 
coin devices many features peculiarly Oriental, definitely 
abandoned the native Indian tradition and adopted in 
essentials the European form of coin. From this time forward 
the principal coinages of Northern India are double-die 
pieces, issued by the authority of the sovereign, and usually 
bearing either his effigy or his name, or both. 

Kadphises II was succeeded (circa a. d. 125) by Kani.shka, 
the conqueror of Kashmir, renowned in Buddhist tradition 
as the convener of the last Church Council, and the zealous 
patron of the newer form of Buddhism b This famous 
monarch regarded Kabul and Peshawar as his capital cities, 
and issued, probably chiefly from those mints, vast quantities 
of gold and copper coin. His aiirei agree with those of his 
predecessor in weight and purity, but differ widely in design 
and legend. 'I'he obverse device of the king standing .sacri- 
ficing at a fire-altar was retained as inherited from Kadphises 
II. The novel reverse devices, which display astonishing 
variety, are devoted to the representation of an eclectic 
assemblage of gods and goddesses, beginning with the Greek 
HXtos and the Sun and Moon, and ending with 

Buddha, the Sakya sage. Many of the deities represented in 

* .The exact date of Kanishka is still undetermined, and Dr. Fleet 
believes that he preceded the Kadphises kings. 




kritsni, and Kdrshiidjini are named. We meet with the 
three last of these elsewhere only in the Veddnta-Sdtra 
of Badarayana, Bddari excepted, who appears also in the 
Mimansa-Siitra of Jaimini. Vatsya is a name which oc- 
casionally occurs in the Vanias of the l§atapatha-Brah- 
mana ; ^ and the same applies to J dtiikarny a, who appears 
in the Vahia of the Madhu- and Ydjnavalkiya-kdndas in 
the Kdnva recension as a pupil of Asurdyana and of Yaska. 
(In the Mddhyaradina recension, another teacher inter- 
venes between the last-named and Jdtdkarnya, viz,, Bha- 
radvdja.) He is also mentioned in the Aitareya-Aranyaka, 
and repeatedly in the Pratiidkhya-Sdtra of the White Yaj us. 
Besides these, “ eJce” are frequently quoted, whereby refer- 
ence is made to other ^akhds. One passage gives expression 
to a certain hostility towards the descendants of the daugh- 
ter of Atri (the Haleyas, Valeyiis, Kaudreyas, .^aubhreyas, 
Vamarathyas, Gopavanas) ; while the descendants of Atri 
himself are held in especial honour. A similar hostility 
is exhibited in other passages tovrards the descendants of 
Kanva, Ka^yapa, and Kautsa ; yet these three words, ac- 
cording to the commentaries, may also be taken as appel- 
latives, kanva as “ deaf,” kaiyapa as “ having black teeth ” 
{SydvadaTUd) , and kautsa as “ doing blamable things.” 
The first adhydya is of peculiar interest, as it gives the 
parihhdshds, or general rules for the sacrificial ceremonial. 
Otherwise this work, being entirely based upon the Brah- 
mana, and therefore in no way an independent production, 
contains but few data throwing light upon its probable 
age. such we may reckon in particular * the 
circumstance that the word vijaya, “ conquest,” sc. of the 

KiL^akjritsni appears as a graui- pointing to later times; it belongs 
marian also; he is possibly even to the same class as ayni = 3, iA/i = 
earlier than Ptlnini ; see/. 5 ^,, xiii. I, &c, [This is wrong; a little be- 
398, 413. On a Vedic commentator fore, in xx. 5. 16, mention is made 
Kd^akritsna, see above, pp. 42, 91, of loi manis^ and in xx. 7. I we have 
In addition to this there is simply a reference back to this. We 
quoted in ix- 5* opinion of might rather cite ^dyatrUampaJind, 

a teacher bearing this name; a &c., xx ii. 21, fF., in the sense of 
Vdtsa is mentioned in the Aitar. Ar. 24. &c., but there is this material dif- 
and 6dnkh. Ar. ference from the later use, that it is 

* The use of mani, xx, 7. I, to iiotydyaM alone which ineans24, but 
denote loi, may also be instanced as gdyati'isampanna .] 


points of the compass,* is once used in the sense of " the 
points of the compass ” themselves (xx. 4. 26), which evi- 
dently presupposes the custom of the dig-vijayas — probably 
also poetical descriptions of them (?). The adhydyas relat- 
ing to the Saman ceremonial (xxii.-xxiv.) are tlie richest 
in this kind of data. They treat, for instance, like the 
Sama-Siitras, of the sacrifices on the Sarasvati, and also of 
the Vratya-sacrifices, at which we find the MdyadhadeHya 
hrahmahandhu (xxii. 4. 22) occupying the same position as 
in Latyavana, 

The Katyayana-Siitra has had many commentators, as 
Ya^oga,^®^ Pitriblniti, Karka (quoted by Say ana, and there- 
fore prior to him^^^), Bhar triy aj na, ^rf-Ananta, Devayaj- 
nika (or Yajnikadeva), and Mahadeva. The works of the 
three last,t and that of Karka are, however, the only ones 
that seem to have been preserved. The text, with extracts 
from these commentaries, will form the third part of my 
edition of the White Yajus.^®* — To this Sdtra a multitude 

* See Lessen, /. AK.^ i. 54 ^* Catalogue, under No, 742, a eoiu- 
[According to the St Petersburg mentary by Mahidhara it* mentioned, 
Dictionary, the word in the above hnt I question provisionally the cor* 
passage should only mean ‘gain, the rectness of this statement. [The 
thing conquered, booty ; ’ but a re- correct order is : Karka, Pitriblniti, 
ference to locality is made certain by Yasogooi, Bhartriyajr»a. They are 
the parallel passage, hdty., ix. lO. so cited by Ananta, who himself 
17 : vijilasya vd madliye yajet (yo seems to have lived in the fipf't half 
yasya deio vijitah sydt, sa tasya m. of the sixteenth century, provided 
y.); tor the diyvijayas, it is true, we he be really identical with the 6ri- 
do not gain anything by this pas- madanantdkhyachdturmdsyaydjin, 

whom Ndrdya^a, the author of tlie 
Tlj is name must be read Yaso- Muhdrtamdrta^^a, mentions as his 
gopi ; see my edition, lutrod., n.vii. father; see my Catalogue of the 
A Dhumrdyanasagotra Karkd- Herliii MSS., No. 879. Deva on i. 
dhydpaka occurs in an inscription lO. 13 quotes a Ndrdyanabbdshya; 
published by Dowson in Jowmal R, might not Ananta's son be its uu- 
A, S.f i. 283 (1865), of ^ridattaku- thor?] 

^alin (Prasantardga), dated 9^. 380 This part was published 1856- 

(but of what era?). ^ 59 ; Deva’s Paddhati to books i.-v. 

+ [They are, however, inconi- is th^re given in full, also his com- 
plete, in part exceedingly so.] The mentary on book L ; the extracts 
earliest MS. hitherto known of the from the scholia to books ii,— xi. 
vydJchyd of Ydjnikadeva is dated are likewise taken from Deva^s com- 
Sdijivat i 639' have given the m< niiiiy: to b->iik.s ii.— v. there 

names of these commentators in the exhib.t, us to stylo, some differeucea 
order in which they are cited by one from the original wording, resulting 
another ; iu> doubt there were other from abbreviations ; the extracts 
commentatorsalso preceding Ya^oga for books xii.-xxvi. come from the 
[Yasogopi]. In the Fort William scholium of Karka and from an ano* 




of Paddhatis (outlines), extracts, and similar works * attach 
themselves, and also a large number of Pari^ishtas (supple- 
ments), which are all attributed to Katyayana, and have 
found many commentators. Of these, we must specially 
draw attention to the Nigama-Parisishta, a kind of syno- 
nymic glossary to the White Yajus ; and to the Pravard - 
dhy6jya,\ an enumeration of the different families of the 
Brahnaans, with a view to the proper selection of the sacri- 
ficial priests, sis well as for the regulation of the inter- 
marriages forbidden or permissible among them. The 
Chcira’m-vy'idha, an account of the schools belonging to the 
several Vedas, Is of little value. Its statements may for 
the most part be correct, but it is extremely incomplete, 
and from beginning to end is evidently quite a modern 

The Siitra of VaiJavdjm, to which I occasionally find 
allusion in the commentaries on the Katiya-Sutra, I am 
inclined to class among the Sutras of the White Yajus, as 
I do not meet with this name anywhere else except in the 
Vafinas of the ^atap. Br. Here we have both a Vaijavapa 
and a Vaijavapayana, both appearing among the most 
recent members of the lists (in the Kanva recension I find 
only the latter, and he is here separated by five steps only 
from Yaska). A Grihya-Siitra of this name is also cited. 

The Kdtiya Grihya-S'dtra}^^ in three kdndas, is attri- 
buted to Paraskara, from whom a school of the White 

nymous epitome {saTfiJcsIdplazdTa) of 
Deva, the MS. of which dates from 
Bamvat 1609. None of these com- 
mentaries is complete, 

* By Gadadhara, Ilariharumisra, 
Uenndikshita, Gal\gddhaia, ko, 
t Printed, hut unfortunately from 
a very had codex, in my Catalo^ne 
of the Berlin MSS., pp. 54-62, [See 
L St., X. 88, ff,] 

Edited in 1 . St., iii. 247-283 
(1854); see also Miiller, A. S, L,, 
p. 368, IF., and Rdjcndra Ldla Mitra 
in the preface to his translation of 
the Chhdndogyopanishad, p. 3. Tlie 
enumerations of the Vedic schools 
in the Vishnu-Purd^a, iii. 4, and 
especially in the Vdyu-Purdna, chap, 
lx. (see Aufrecht’s Catalogiis, p. 54, 

£F.), contain by far richer material. 
If all these Bclioola actually existed 
— but there is certainly a great deal 
of mere error and embellishment in statements — then, in trutli, 
lamentably little has been left to us ! 

See Steijzler’s account of its 
contents in Z. D. M. G., vii. (1853), 
and his es-say on the arglia^na 
(Pdr., L 8,^ Breslau, 1855). — The Sec- 
tions on marriage ceremonial have 
been published by Haas, I, St,, v. 
283, ff., whilst the sections on the 
jdtakarman have been edited by 
Speijer (1872), together with critical 
variants (pp, 17-23) to the MS. of 
the whole text which was used by 



yajus also (according to the Charanavyiiha) derived its 
name. The word Paraskara is used as a samjnd, or proper 
name — hut, according to the to denote a district — 

in th« Siitra of Panini ; hut I am unahle to trace it in 
Vedic literature. To this Grihya-Sntra there are still ex- 
tant a Paddhati hy Vasudeva, a commentary hy Jnyarama, 
and above all a most excellent commentary hy Kania- 
krishna under the title of Samskdra-ganapati, which ranks 
above all similar works from its abundant quotations and 
its very detailed and exhaustive handling of the various 
subjects. In the introduction, which deals with the Veda 
in general and the Yajurveda in particular, Eamakrishna 
declares that the Kanva school is the best of those belong- 
ing to the Yajus. — Under the name of Paraskara there 
exists also a Smriti-^astra, which is in all probability 
based upon this Grihya-Sdtra. Among the remaining 
Smriti-^astras, too, there are a considerable number whose 
names are connected with those of teachers of the White 
Yajus; for instance, Ydjnavalkya, whose posteriority to 
Manu quite corresponds to the posteriority of the White 
Yajus to the Black Yajus — and no doubt also to that of 
the Katiya-Siitra to the Manava-Sdtra ; — further, Katya- 
yana (whose work, however, as we saw,^ connects itself 
with the Samaveda), Kanva, Gautama, Sandilya, Jabali, 
and PartUara. The last two names appear among the 
schools of the White Yajus specified in the Charanavyuha, 
and we also find members of their families named in the 
Vansas of the Satapatha-Brahmana, where the family of 
the Para^aras is particularly often represented.* 

The Prdtiidkhy a- Sdtra of the White Yajus, as well as 
its Anukramani, names at its close Katyayana as its author. 
In the body of the work there is mention, first, of three 
grammarians, whom we also find cited in the Prati^akhya 
of the Rik, in Yaska, and in Panini, vk., ^akatayana, 
Sakalya, and Gargya; next, of Ka^yapa, likewise men- 
tioned by Panini; and, lastly, of Ualbhya, Jatdkarnya, 
Saunaka (the author of the Rik-Prdti^akhya ?), Aupalivi, 

[Son I. St., i. 156.] rdyini, iv. canti>. [The PdriUarino hJdkshavah 
3 - no (a rule which possibly does are jnentioucd iu the Mahdbhdshya 
not belong to him), attributes to .a also, and besides a Kalpa by Parti- 
Pdrdtiarya a Bhikshu-Stitra, t.e., a dara; see ]. Si., xiii. 340, 445.] 
coinpendiuio for religious nietidi- 



Kanva, and the Madhyamdinas. The distinction in 1 i. 
1 8, 19 between veda, and hhdshya, i.e., works in hJidshd, 
—which corresponds to the use of the latter word in Panini, 
—has already been mentioned (p. 57). The first of the 
eight ^hydyas contains the samjnds and parihMsMs, i.e., 
technical terms * and general preliminary remarks. The 
second adhy. treats of the accent; the third, fourth, and 
fifth of samskdra, i.e., of loss, -addition, alteration, and 
constancy of the letters with reference to the laws of 
euphony ; the sixth of the accent of the verb in the sen- 
tence, &c. ; the eighth contains a table of the vowels and 
consonants, lays down rules on the manner of reading 
{svddhydya),^ and gives a division of words corresponding 
to that of Yaska. Here, too, several ilokas are quoted re- 
ferring to the deities of the letters and words, so that I am 
almost inclined to consider this last adhydya (which is, 
moreover, strictly speaking, contained in the first) as a 
^ater addition. t We have an excellent commentary on 

this work by iTvata, who has been repeatedly mentioned, 
under the title of Mdtrimodaka}^’’ 

The Anukramani of Katyayana contains, in the first 
place, in the first four adhydyas (down to iv. 9), an index 
of the authors, deities, and metres of the several iukldmi 
yajunshi "White Yajus-formulas” contained in the '^Mddh- 
yamdiniye Vdjasamyake Yajv/rveddTmdye sarve [?] sakhiU 
saAukriye,” which the saint Yajnavalkya received from 
Vivasvant, the sun-god. For their viniyoga, or liturgical 
use, we are referred to the Kalpakara. As regards the 
names of authors here mentioned, there is much to be re- 
marked. The authors given for the richcis usually agree 
with those assigned to the same verses in the Rig-anu^a- 
mani ; there are, however, many exceptions to this. Very 
often the particular name appears (as is also the case in 

* Among them tin, krit, laddkUa, 
and tipadhdf terms quite agreeing 
witli Piinini’s terminology. 

llixther: ‘reciting;’ because 
too we must dismiss all idea 
of writing and reading. 

+ In that case the mention of the 
Mddhyaqidinaswould go for nothing. 

In connection with my edition 
of this Prjiti^dkbya, text and trans- 

lation^ with critical introduction and 
explanatory notes, in /. SL, iv, 65- 
160, I 77 ~ 33 ^» Goldstiicker in his 
Pdfjini^ pp, 186-207, started a spe- 
cial controversy, in which inter alia 
he attempts in particular to show 
that the author of this work is iden- 
tical with the author of the v<Mtika9 
^ u 1 ; see my detailed rejoinder 

in /. St,f V. 91-124. 



the Rig-anukramani) to be borrowed from some word 
occurring in the verse. In the case where a passage is 
repeated elsewhere, as very often happens, it is frequently 
assigned to an author different from the one to whom it 
had previously been attributed. Many of the Rishis here 
mentioned do not occur among those of the Rik, and be- 
long to a later stage than these ; among them are several 
even of the teachers mentioned in the Satapatha-Brahmana. 
The closing part of the fourth adhydya* contains the 
dedication of the verses to be recited at particular cere- 
monies to their respective Rishis, deities, and metres, to- 
gether with otlicr similar mystical distributions. Lastly, 
the fifth adhydya gives a short analysis of the metres 
which occur. 1 n the excellent but unfortunately not alto- 
gether complete Paddhati of ^nhala to this Anukramanl 
we find the liturgical use of each individual verse also 
given in detail. 

The Yajus recension of the three works called Vedafigas, 
viz., Siksha, Chhandas, and Jyotisha, has already been dis- 
cu.s.sed (p. 6o).t 

We come now to the Atliarvaveda. 

The Samhitd of the Atharvaveda contains in twenty 
kdndas^^ and thirty-eight jrrapdtJiakas nearly 760 hymns 
and about 6000 verses. Besides the division into prapd- 
ihukas, another into amivdkas is given, of which there are 

Published together with the 
fifth adhydya^ and tlie beginiiii)g of 
the work, in my edition of the Viija- 
saneyi - Saiphiti, introduction, pp. 

t For particulars I refer to my 
Catalogue of the Berlin MSS,, pp, 
96-100 [and to my editions, already 
mentioned, of these three tracts]. 
This division of the Atb. S, 

into twenty books is attested for the 
period of the author of t\xQvdrttiJcas, 
and also by the Gopatha-Brdhuiar^a 
i, 8 ; see /. St., xiii. 433 ; whereas 
both the Atb. S. itself (19. 22, 23) 
and the Atb. Par. 48. 4-6 still con- 
tain the direct intimation that it 
formerly consisted of sixteen books 
,only ; see I. St.y iv. 432-434, 



some ninety. The division into parvans, mentioned in the 
thirteenth book of the ^atapatha-Brahmana, does not ap- 
pear in the manuscripts; neither do they state to what 
school the existing text belongs. As, however, in one of 
the Pari^ishtas to be mentioned hereafter (the seventh), the 
richas belonging to the ceremony there in question are 
quoted as Faippalddd mantrdh>, it is at least certaiu that 
there was a Samhita belonging to the Paippalada school, 
and possibly this may be the Samhita now extant.^®® Its 
contents and principle of division are at present unknown^®® 
in their details. We only know generally that “ it prin- 
cipally contains formulas intended to protect against the 
baneful .influences of the divine powers,* against diseases 
and noxious animals ; cursings of enemies, invocations of 
healing herbs ; together with formulas for all manner of 
occurrences in every-day life, prayers for protection on 
journeys, luck in gaming, and the like ” f — all matters for 
which analogies enough are to be found in the hymns of 
the Rik-Sarnhita. But in the Rik the instances are both 

• 4 ^ 

less numerous, and, as already remarked in the introduc- 
tion (p. ii), they are handled in an entirely different 
manner, although at the same time a not inconsiderable 
portion of these songs reappears directly in the Rik, par- 
ticularly in the tenth mandcda* As to the ceremonial for 
which the hymns of the Atharvan were used, what corre- 

W9 According to a tract rec<mtly riage, xv. of tho glorification .of 
published by Koth, jDcrxliAamtrcifa Vrdtya, xvi., xvii, of certain con- 
in Kashmir (1875), jurati(Mis, xviii. of burial and tlie 

case; the extant Saijihitil seems festival of the Manes. Book xix. is 
rather to belong to the school of a mixture of supplementary pieces, 
the Saunakas, whilst the Paippaliida- part of its text being in a rather 
Snmhitd has come down to us in a corrupt condition ; book xx. con- 
second recension, still preserved in tains, — with one peculiar exco|)tion, 
Kashmir. the so-called kuntdpasuktaj — o}\]y 

100 arrangement in books i,- complete hymns addressed to Indra, 

vii. is according to the number of whicii are borrowed directly and 
verses in the different pieces ; these without change from the Rigveda. 
have, on an average, four verses in Neither of these two hast books is 
book i., five in ii., six in iii., seven noticed in the Atharva-Prdtisiikhya 
in iv., eight to eighteen in v., three (see note 167), and therefore they did 
in vi., and only one in vii. Books not belong to the original text at 

viii. -xiii, contain longer pieces. As the tim^* of this work. 

to the contents, they are indiscrimi- * Of the stars, too, f.e., of the 
uately mixed up. Books xiv.-xviii., lunar a-sterisms, 
on the contrary, have all a uniform + See Uoth, Zur LUL und Gesch 
iiibject-matter ; xiv. treats of mar- dcs Weda^ p. 12. 


epends to it in the other Vedas is found, not in the ^rauta- 
Sutr^, but with few exceptions in the Griliya-Sutras only ; 
and it appears therefore (as I have likewise already re- 
marked) that this ceremonial in its origin belonged rather 
to the people proper than to the families of priests. As 
in the ShadviP^a-Brahmana and in the Sama-Siitras we 
actually meet with a case (see p. 78) where an imprecatory 
ceremony is borrowed from the Vratinas, or Aryans who 
had not adopted the Brahmauical organisation, we may 
further reasonably conjecture that this was not a solitary 
instance ; and thus the view naturally presents itself that, 
though the Atharva-Samhita originated for the most part 
in the Brahmanical period, yet songs and formulas may also 
have been incorporated into it which properly belonged to 
these unbrahmanical Aryans of the west.* And as a mat- 
ter of fact, a very peculiar relation to these tribes is unmis- 
takably revealed in the fifteenth kdnda, where the Supreme 
Being is expressly called by the name of Vrdtya,i®i and is 
at tlie same time associated with the attributes given in 
the Silinaveda as characteristics of the Vratyas. In the 
same way, too, we find this word Vratya employed in the 
Atharva-Upanishads in the sense of “ pure in himself” to 
denot(i tlie Supreme Being. The mention of the mdgaiUia 
in the \ ratya-book, and the possibility that this word may 
refer to anti-brahmanical Buddhist teachers, liave already 
been discussed (p. 112). In a passage communicated by 
Koth, op. c. p. 38, special, and hostile, notice is taken of the 
Angas and Magadhas in the East, as well as of tlie G an- 
dharis, Miijavants, Siidras, Mahavrishas, and Valhikas in 
the North-West, between which tribes therefore the Brah- 
manical district was apparently shut in at the time of 
the composition of the song in question. Intercourse 
with the West appears to have been more active than 
with the East, five of the races settled in the West 
being mentioned, and two only of those belonging to the 

* In the VishrLU-Punina the Sain- 
dhavas, Saindhavdyanas are men- 
tioned. as a school of the Atharvan, 
This explanation of the con- 
tents of this book and of the word 
wrdtyd is based upon its employment 
in the Pra^nopanishad 2. 7, and in 

the Chulikopanisliad, v. ii (see /. 
St,, i. 445, 446, ix. 15, 16). Ac- 
cording to i^oth, on the contrary 
(see above p. 112, note), the purpose 
of the book is rather “ the idealising 
of the devout vagrant or mendicant 


East. In time it will certainly be possible, in the Atharva- 
Samliita also, to distinguish between pieces that are older 
and pieces that are more modern, although upon the whole 
geographical data are of rare occurrence. Its language 
exldbits many very peculiar forms of words, often in a 
very antique although prakritized shape. It contains, 
in fact, a mass of words used by the people, which from 
lack of occasion found no place in the other branches of the 
literature. The enumeration of the lunar asterisms in the 
nineteenth hdnda begins with krittikd, just as in the Tait- 
tirfya-Samhita, but othervdse it deviates considerably from 
the latter, and gives for the most part the forms of the 
names us(!d in later times.^®^ No direct determination of 
date, however, can be gathered from it, as Colebrooke ima- 
gined. Of special interest is the mention of the Asura 
Krishna * Ke^in, from the slaying of whom Krishna (Angi- 
rasa ?, Devaki'putra) receives the epithets of Ke^ihan, Ke^i- 
Siidana in the Epic and in the Puranas. In those hymns 
which appear also in the Rik-Samhita (mostly in its last 
maridala) , t\iQ variations are often very considerable, and 
these readings seem for the most part equally warranted 
with those of the Rik. There are also many points of 
contact with the Yajus. 

The earliest mention of the Atharvan-songs occurs under 
tlm two names "Atharvdnas” and “Aflgirasas,” names 
which belong to the two most ancient Rishi-families, oi* to 
the common ancestors of the Indo-Aryans and the Persa- 
Aryans, and which are probably only given to these songs 
in order to lend all the greater authority and holiness 
to the incantations, &c., contained in them.f They are 
also often specially connected with the ancient family 
of the Bhrigus.i®® Whether we have to take the “ Athar- 

The piece in question jnoves, 
on special grouixls, to be a later sup- 
plement ; see /, St., iv. 433, n, 

* An Asura Krislma we find even 
in the Rik-Saiphibi, and ho plays a 
prominent part in tlie Buddhist 
legends (in which he seems to be 
identified with the Kfish^a of the 
epic (??). 

t See /, St , i. 295, ff. That these 
names indicate any Peraa-Aryan in- 
fluence is not to be thought of; 

and if, according to the Bhavishya- 
Puriina (Wilson in Reinaud's Mem. 
snr rinde, p. 394), the Parsis (Magas) 
have four Vedas, the Vada (! Ytin- 
na?), Vif 5 vavada (Vi^pered), Vidut 
(Vendidad), and ngirasa, this is a 
purely Indian view, though indeed 
very remarkable, 

See niy essay Ztvei vcdisckt 
Texit uher Omina xind Portenta. pn 




vanas” in the thirtieth book of the Vaj. Samhitd as 
Atharvan-songs ia not yet certain ; • but for the period to 
which the eleventh, thirteenth, and fourteenth books of 
the ^atapatha-Brahniana, as well as tlie Clihandogyopa- 
nishad and the Taittin'ya-Aranyaka (ii. and viii.), belong, 
the existence of the Atharvan-soncrs and of the Atharva- 
veda is fully established by tJic mention of^ them in 
these works. The thirteenth book of the Satapatha- 
Brahmana even mentions a division into 'parvans* which, 
as already remarked, no longer appears in the manuscripts. 
In the eighth book of the Taittiriya-Arapyaka, the ddeia, 
i.e., the Brahmana, is inserted between the three other 
Vedas and the “ Atharvangirasas.” Besides these notices, 
I find the Atharvaveda, or more precisely the “Athar- 
vanikas,” only mentioned in the Nidana-Siitra of the 
Sdmaveda (and in Panini). The names, too, which belong 
to the schools of the Atharvaveda appear nowhere in 
Vedic literature,t with the exception perhaps of KauiSika; 
still, this patronymic does not by any means involve a 
special reference to the Atharvan.f Another name, which 
is, however, only applied to the Atharvaveda in the later 
Atharvan-writings themselves, viz., in the Pari^ishtas, is 
“Brahma- veda.” This is explained by the circumstance that 
it claims to be the Veda for the chief sacrificial priest, the 
Brahman,^®* wdiile the other Vedas are represented as those 
of his assistants only, the Hotar, XJdgatar, and Adhvaryu, 

* Corresponding to the 9 ^iJctaSj as magic formulas ; 

anuvdkas, and daiats of the Ilik, in the Rdmdyim i likewise only once 
Yaj US, and JSdman respectively. ii. 26. 20 (Coir.) the mantvdi 

t Meiiiheis of the family of the chdidiarvandz (the latter passage I 
Atharvan^ are now and then men- overlooked in /. St.^ i. 297)* [ 1 “ 

tjoned ; thus especially Dadhyaftch Patamjali’.s Mahdbbt^hya^ however, 
Ath., Kahaiidha Ath., whom the the Alharvan is cited at the head 
Vish^u-Puni^a designates as a pupil of the Vedas (as in the Rig-Gfihyas, 
of Sumantu (the latter we met in the see above, p. 58), occasionally even 
Qfihya-Sfitras of the Rik, see above, as their only representative; see 
P* 57 )* others. I, .xiii, 431-32.] 

+ It seems that even in later This explanation of the name, 

times the claim of the Atharvan to though the traditional on^, is yet 
rank as Veda was disputed. Ydj- very likely t rroiieous; by Brahma- 
navalkya (i, lOl) mentions the two veda (a name which is first men- 
separately, veddfhaT^ ; though in tioned in the Sdnkh. Grihya, i. 16) 
another passage (i, 44) the ** Athar- we have rather to understand ‘the 
▼dngirasas” occur along with Rich, Veda of of prayers, ie,, 

Sdman, and Yajus. In Menu’s here in the narrower sense of * in* 
Code we only once find the h^ir cantations.’ (St. Petersburg Diet.) 



— a claim which, has probably no other foundation than 
the circumstance, cleverly turned to account, that there 
was, in. fact, no particular Veda for the Brahman, who 
was bound to know all three, as is expressly required 



pretension s 




wards one another, too, they show a hostile enough spirit ; 
for instance, one of the Pavi^ishtas considers a Bhdrgava, 
Paippalada, and ^aunaka alone worthy to act as priest to 
the king,* while a Mauda or Jalada as ‘pxirohita would 

only bring misfortune. 

The Athnrva-Samhita also, it seems, -was commented 
upon by Sayana. Manuscripts of it are comparatively 
rare on the Continent. Most of them are distinguished by 
a peculiar mode of accentuation ."f A piece of the Samhita 
of some length has been made known to us in text and 
translation by Aufrecht {I. 121-140); besides this, 

only some fragments have been published.^®® 

The Brahmana-stage is but very feebly represented in 
the Atharvaveda, viz., by the Gopatha- Brdhmarm, which, 
in the manuscript with which I am acquainted (E. I. H., 
2 142), comprises a jMirt-a- and an w^tora-portion, each con- 
taining five prapdthakas ; the MS., however, breaks oil 
with the beginning of a sixth (i.e., the eleventh) prapd- 

* Ydjiiavalkya (i, 312) also re- 
quires that such uu one be well 
versed atharvdngirase, 

+ Dots are here used instead of 
lines, and the svarita stauds mostly 
beside, not above, the akshara. 

The whole text has been 

edited lonp since (i855"5^) 
and Whitney. Tlie t\v>t t.wo books 
have been translated by me in /. 
Sty iv. 393-430> and xiii. 129-216, 
and the nuptial formulas contained 
iti the fourteemh book, together 
with a great variety of love charms 
and similar formulas from the re- 
maining b()t>ks, ibiity V, 204"266. 
For the criticism of the text see 
Roth’s tracts, Ueberden Atharvaveda 
(1856), and Der Atharvaveda in 

Kashmir (1H75;. In tlie Gopalha- 
Brdhmana (i. 29), and in Patamjali’s 
Mahdbhdsbya (see /. Sty xiii. 433 ; 
although, according to Burnell, In- 
trod, to Vahfo-Brdliinana, p, xxii., 
the South Indian MSS. omit the 
quotation from the Atliarvaveda), 
the beginning of the Sarnhitd is given 
otherwise than in our text, as it 
commences with i.6, instead of i. !• 
It is similarly given by Bhand.irkar, 
Indian Antiquary, iii. 132 ; and two 
MSS. in Huug*s possession actually 
begin the text in this manner; nee 
Hang’s Brahvian und die Brahma- 
neuy p. 45. — Burnell (Introd. to 
Vnusa Br.,p. xxi.) doubts whether 
the Atb. S. was commented by 


* 5 * 

(haJca. In one of the Pari^ishtas the work is stated to 
have originally contained lOO prapdthaJcas. The contents 
are entirely unknown to me. According to Colebrooke’s 
remarks on the subject, Atharvan is here represented as a 
Prajapati who is appointed by Brahman as a Demiurge ; 
and this is, in fact, the position which he occupies in the 
PariiSishtas and some of the Upanishads. The division of 
the year into twelve (or thirteen) months consisting of 
360 days, and of each day into thirty muh'drtas, which 
Colebrooke points out as remarkable, equally appears in 
the Brahmanas of the Yajus, &c.^®® 

Departing from the order hitherto followed I will add 
here what 1 have to say about the S'dtras of the Atharva- 
veda, as these are the only other writings which have 
reference to the Sarnhitd, whereas the remaining parts of 
the Athar van-literature, corresponding to the Aranyakas 
of the other Vedas, have no reference to it whatever. 

In the first place, I have to mention the ^aunaMyd 
cJiatur - adhydyilcd}^^ a kind of Prati^akhya for the 
Atharva-Sainhita, in four adhydyas, which might possibly 
go back to the author of the Rik-Prati^akhya, who is 
also mentioned in the Prdti^akhya of the White Yajus. 
Tlie ^aunakas are named in the Charanavyulia as a school 
of the Atharvan, and members of this school are re- 
peatedly mentioned in the Upanishads. The work bears 
here and there a more generally grammatical character 
than is the case with the remaining Prati^akhyas. ^aka- 

M. MUllor tii>L us some 
iuf(irination as to tiie Gopatha- 
Brdhina^a in his History of A. S, L., 

p. 445*455 ! *1**''' work it'-elf 

has been published by Rajoudra Ldla 
Mitra and Harachandra Vidyjibhti- 
shana in the BibL Jvdica (1S70- 
72), According to this it consists 
of eleven (t.c., 5 + 6) pra])dikakas 
only. We do not discover in it any 
special relation to the Atb. S,, apart 
from several references thereto under 
different names. The contents are 
a niedley, to a large extent derived 
from other sources. The first half 
is essentially of speculative, cos« 
mogonio import, and is particularly 
tich in legends, a good number 

of which appear in the same form as 

in tho Satapatha-Brdhmana, xi, xii., 

and are therefore probably simply 

copied from it. The second half 

contains a brief exposition of a 

variety of points connected with the 

Srauta ritual, specially adapted, Jia 

it seems, .from tlie Aitar. Br, Veiy 

remarkable is the assumption in i. 

28 of a doshapatif lord of evil (! ?), 

who at the beginning of the I)vd- 

para (-yoga) is supposed to have 

acted as ^rishindm ckaddahd This 

• • • 

reminds us of, and doubtie.«s rests 
upon, thf Mdra of the Biuhlhists. 

form of name in the 
MS. is : chaturddkydyiht. 



tdyana and other grammatical teachers are mentioned. 
In the Berlin MS. — the only one as yet known — each rule 
is followed by its commentary 

An Anukramani to tlie Atharva-Samhita is also ex- 
tant ; it, however, specifies for the most part only divine 
beings, and seldom actual Rishis, as authors. 

The KavAika- S'&tra is the sole existing ritual Siitra of 
the Atharvaveda, although I am acquainted with an 
Atharvana-Grihya through quotations.^®® It consists of 
fourteen adhydyas, and in the course of it the several 
doctrines are repeatedly ascribed to Kau^ika, In the intro- 
duction it gives as its authorities the Mantras and the 
Brahmanas, and failing these the sampraddya, i.e., tradi- 
tion, and in the body of the work the Bnihinana is likewise 
frequently appealed to (by iti hr.) ; whether by this the Go- 
patha-Brahmana is intended I am unable to say. The style 
of the work is in general less concise than that of the other 
Siitras, and more narrative. The contents are precisely 
those of a Grihya-Sutra. The third adhydya treats of the 
ceremonial for Nirriti (the goddess of misfortune); the 
fourth gives bhaishajyas, healing remedies ; the sixth, &c., 
imprecations, magical spells ; the tenth treats of marriage ; 
the eleventh of the Manes-sacrifice ; the thirteenth and 
fourteenth of expiatory ceremonies for various omens and 
portents (like the Adbhuta-Brahmana of the Samaveda).^®^ 

Of this Prdti^dkhya also Whit- By which is doubtless meant 

ney has given us an excellent edition just this Kau^ika-Siatra. A ^rauta- 
in Journal Am. Or, Soc,, vii. (1862), Sutra belonging to the Atharvaveda 
X. 156, fir, {1872, ad iitions). See also has recently come to light, under 
my remarks in I. St., iv. 79-82. the name of Vaitilna - Sdtra ; see 
According to Whitney, this work Hang, I. St., ix. 176; Biihler, 
t^lkes no notice of the two last books Cat. of MSS, from Gujardt, i. 190, 
of the existing Ath, text, which it and Monat^hirichte of the l^erl. 
otherwise follows closely; since Acad. 1871, p. 76; and some fuller 
therefore the Atharva-Saiphitd in account.n in Roth's Atharvaveda in 
Patarpjali's time already comprised Kashmir, p. 22, 
twenty books, we might from this These two sections are pub- 

directly infer the priority of the lished, with translation and notes, 
6aun. chat.; unless Patarpjali’s state- in my essay, Ztvei vediscke Texts 
ment refer not to our text at all, iiher Omina und Partenta (1859); 
but ratlier to that of tlie Paippa- the section relating to marriage 
Idda school ; see Roth, Der Atkarva^ ceremonies is communicated in a 
i^edaiii Kashmir, p. 15. — Biihler has paper by Haas, Ueber die Hdrathsge 
discovered another quite dififerent hrdnche dcr alien Inder in /. v. 
Ath. Prdtifiiikhya ; see Monatsher, 378, flf. 
of the Berl. Acad. 18711 p- 77 * 


To this S\itra belong further five so-called Kalpas: the 
NaksJuUra-Kalpa, an astrological compendium relating to 
the lunar mansions, in fifty ka'ndikds ; the ^dnti-Kalpa, 
in twenty-five kandikds, which treats Likewise of the ador- 
ation of the lunar mansions,^"® and contains prayers ad- 
dressed to them ; the Vitdna-Kalfa, the Samhitd- Kalpa , 
and the Ahhichdra-Kalpa. The Vishnu-Purana and the 
Charanavyuha, to be presently mentioned, name, instead 
of the last, the Aiigirasa- Kalpa. Further, seventy-four 
smaller Pari^ishtas also belong to it, mostly composed in 
ilokas, and in the form of dialogues, like the Puranas. 
The contents are Grihya-subjects of various kinds ; astro- 
logy>^^“ magic, and the doctrine concerning omens and por- 
tents are most largely represented. Some sections corre- 
spond almost literally to passages of a like nature in the 
astrological Samhitas. Among these Pari^ishtas, there is 
also a Charana-vydha, vrhich states the number of the Hchas 
in the Atharva-Samhita at 1 2,380, Tihat of the parydyas 
(hymns) at 2000; but the number of the Kaviikoktdni 
pariiish^dni only at 70. Of teachers who are mentioned the 
following are the chief : first, Briliaspati Atharvan, Bhaga- 
vant Atharvan himself, Bhrigu, Bhargava, Angiras, Angi- 
rasa, Kavya (or Kavi) U^anas; then ^aunaka, Narada, 
Gautama, Kamkayana, Karmagha, Pippalada, Mahaki, 
Garga, Gargya, Vriddhagarga, Atreya, Padmayoni, Kmush- 
tuki. We meet with many of these names again in the 
astrological literature proper. 

I now turn to the most characteristic part of the lite- 
rature of the Atharvan, viz., the Upanishads. Whilst the 
Upanishads /car’ so called, of the remaining Vedas 

all belong to the later, or even the latest, portions of these 

An account of the contents of 
both ti'Xis is given in my second 
essay on the Nakshatras, pp, 390- 
393 (1862) ; Haug iu /. 5 ^., ix. 174, 
mentions an Ara^yak:i-Jyi»tisha, dif- 
ferent from the Nakshatra-Kalpa, 
Haug, L e.f speaks of 72 ; 
amongst them is found a Nighantu, 
which is wanting in the Berlin MS, 
Compare the Nigama-Parii^islita of 
tile White Yajus. — Texts of this 

kind are quoted even in the Mahjt 
bhdshya ; see I. St.y xiii. 463. 

Une of the Pari^iah^as relating 
to tliis subject has been communi- 
cated by me in /. St, x. 317, ff. ; it is 
the fifty-first of the scries. The state- 
ments found therein concerning the 
planets presu}>pose the existence of 
Greek influence; cf. ibicLy p. 3 ^ft 
viii. 413. 



Vedas, they at least observe a certain limit which they 
never transgress, that is to say, they keep within the range 
of inquiry into the nature of the Supreme Spirit, with- 
out serving sectarian purposes. The Atha^van *Upani- 
shads, on the contrary, come down as far as the time of the 
Furd^as, and in their final phases they distinctly enter the 
, lists in behalf of sectarian views. Their number is as yet 
undetermined. Usually only fifty-two are enumerated. 
But as among these there are several which are of 
quite modern date, I do not see why we should separate 
these fifty-two Upanishads from the remaining similar 
tracts which, although not contained in the usual list, 
nevertheless call themselves Upanishads, or Atharvopani- 
shads "y more especially as this list varies in part accord- 
ing to the different works where it is found, and as the 
manuscripts mix. up these fifty-two with the remaining 
Upanishads indiscriminately. Indeed, with regard to tlie 
Upanishad literature' we have this peculiar state of tilings, 
that it may extend down to very recent times, and 
consequently the number of writings to be reckoned as 
belonging to it is very considerable. Two years ago, in 
the second part of the Indische Studien, I stated the num- 
ber at ninety-five, including the Upanishads contained in 
the older Vedas.* The researches instituted by Walter 
Elliot in Masulipatam among the Telingana Brahmans on 
this subject have, however, as Dr. Eoer writes to me, 
yielded the result that among these Brahmans there are 

* This number is wrong ; it ought vopanishad) being different from 
to be piuety-three. I there counted the former, —The number now 
the Anandavalli and Bbfiguvalii here finally arrived at — ninety- 
twice, first among the twenty-tliree six — is obtained (i) by the atidi- 
Atkarvopanishads omitted by An- tion of six new Upanishads, viz., 
quetil, and then among the nine the Bhdllavi-Upanishad, the Saqi- 
Upanishadsborrow'ed from the other vartop., the second Mahopanishad, 
Vedas which are found in his work, and three of the Upanishads con- 
The number would further have to tained in the Atharva^iras (Gana. 
be reduced to ninety-two, since I pati, Sfirya, Devi) ; (2) by the 
cite Colebrooke’s Amjvtavindu and omission of two, the Rudropanishad 
AnquetiFs Amptandda as distinct and the Atharvaniya-Rudropanishad, 
Upanishads, whereas in point of fact which are possibly identical with 
they are identical ; but then, on the others of those cited ; and (3) by 
other hand, two Upanishads identi- counting the MabdudiAyanopauishad 
fied by me ought to be kept distinct, as only one, whereas Colebrooke 
viz., Colebrooke's Prd^dgnihotra and counts it as two. 

A.nquetil’s Prauou, the latter (Pra^a- 



123 XJpaiiishads actually extant; and if we include those 
which they do not possess, but which are contained in my 
list just referred to, the total is raised to 147* A list of 
these 123 is given in two of them, viz., in the Mahavak- 
yamuktavali and in the Muktikopanishad, and is exactly 
the same in both. According to the statement given 
above, there must be among these 123 fifty- tw'of in 
all which are wanting in my own list, and these include the 
two names just mentioned. — A Persian translation made 
in 1656 of fifty Upanishads is extant in Anquetil du Per- 
ron’s Latin rendering. 

If now we attempt to classify the Upanishads so 
far know-n, the most ancient naturally are those (i- 
12) which are found in the three older Vedas only.J 
1 have already remarked that these never pursue sectarian 
aims. A seeming — but only a seeming — exception to this 
is the ^atarudriya ; for although the work has in fact been 
used for sectarian purposes, it had originally quite a 
dih'erent significance, which had nothing to do with the 
misapplication of it afterwards made ; originally, indeed, it 
was not an Upanishad at all.§ A real exception, however, 
is the ^vetMvataropanisliad (13), which is in any case 
wrongly classed with the Black Yajus ; it is only from its 
having incorporated many passages of the latter that it has 
been foisted in here. It belongs to about the same rank 
and date as the Kaivalyopanishad. Nor can WiaMaitrdyana- 
Z7jfia?its^c?(i4)reasonably claim to be ranked wutli the Black 

* Accoidiiig to the preNiuu^i uote, 
only 145, 

+ According to last note but one, 
only fifty. [In the list pubiisiicd hy 
W. Eni<»t of the Ucanit-hads in the 
Muktikopan., sec Jout'nal A$, Soc. 
Beng,^ 1851, p. 607, ff., 108 names 
are directly cited (at:d of these 98 
are analysed singly in Taylor’s ( 7 a< <- 
logut (i860) of the Orichlal MSS. <f 
Fort St, Georgcy ii. 457-474). But 
to these oiher names havu to be 
added whicli are tlicre omittt^d ; see 
2 . SLj iii, 324-326. The alphabe- 
tical list puhlishnd by Mr Muller in 

Z. D, M, 0., xix. 137-158 (1865), 

brings the number up to 149 (170, 
Bumelli Indian Antiquary^ ii. 267). 

•Since then njuuy new names have 
been brought to our knowledge by 
the Catalogin s of MSS. published by 
Burnell, Biihler, Kielhorn, Rdjendra 
Ldla Mitra, JJaug [Brahman und die 
Brahmanen, pp. 29-31), &c. ; so that 
at present I count 235 Upanishads, 
many of uhich, liowevHr, are pro- 
bably identical wi:h othtu’s, as in 
many cases Uie names alone are at 

present known to us.] 

J Namely, Aitareya, Kausldlaki, 
Vdshkala, I'hhdndogya, Satannlriya, 
Sikshdvalli or Taitt, Saridiitopani- 
shad, Chlifigiileya (?), Tadeva, Siva- 
saipkalpa, Purushiisfikta, tsd, Vri* 


§ See on this 7 . ii. l 4 - 47 » 



Yajus; it belongs rather, like the ^vet 44 vataropanishad, only 
to the Yoga period. Still it does not, at least in the part 
known to me,^^® pursue any sectarian aim (see pp. 96-99). 

Apart from the two last-named Upanishads, the transi- 
tion to the Atharvopanishads is formed on the one hand 
by those Upanishads which are found in one of the other 
three Vedas, as well as in a somewhat modified form in an 
Atharvan-recension, and on the other hand by those Upa- 
nishads of which the Atharvan-recension is the only one 
extant, although they may have formerly existed in the 
other Vedas as well. Of the latter we have only one 
instance, the Kdthalca-Upanishad (15, 16); of the former, 
on the contrary, there are several instances (17-20), viz., 
Kena (from the Samaveda), Bhriguvalli, Anandavalli, and 
BrihanndrAyana (Taitt. Ar., viii.-ix.). 

The Atharvopanishads, which are also distinguished ex- 
ternally by the fact that they are mostly composed in 
verse, may themselves be divided into three distinct 
classes, which in their beginnings follow the earlier Upani- 
shads with about equal closeness. Those of the first class 
continue directly to investigate the nature of Atman, or the 
Supreme Spirit ; those of the second deal with the subject 
of absorption (yoga) in meditation thereon, and give the 
means whereby, and the stages in which, men may 
even in this world attain complete union with Atman; 
and lastly, those of the third class substitute for Atman 
some one of the many forms under which ^iva and 
Vishnu, the two principal gods, were in the course of 
time worshipped. 

Before proceeding to discuss these three classes in their 
proper order, I have to make some observations on the 
Atharvan-recensions of those Upanishads which either 
belong at the same time to the other Vedas also, or at any 
rate originally did so. 

The Atharvan-text of the Kenopanishad, in the first 
place, differs but very little from its Saman-text. Tlie 
reason why this Upanishad has been incorporated into the 
Atharvan collection seems to be the fact that Uma Hai- 
mavatf is here (and for the first time) mentioned, as she 

In the remaining parta also there is nothing of the kind to be 


was probably understood in the sense of the ^iva sects. 
With the Atharvan-text both of the Auandavallf and of 
tlie BhriguvalH* * * § I am unacquainted. Of the Brihannani- 
yanop. f also, which corresponds to the Narayaniyop. of 
the TaiLt. Aranyaka, only a few data are known to me ; 
those, how'ever, sufficiently show that the more ancient 
and obscure forms have here throughout been replaced 
by the corresponding later and regular ones.J — The two 
Kathavallis, for the most part in metrical form, are extant 
in the Atharvan-text only.§ The second is nothing but a 
supplement to the first, consisting as it does almost exclu- 
sively of quotations from the Vedas, intended to substan-. 
tiate more fully the doctrines there set forth, ^he first is 
based upon a legend (see pp. 92, 93) related in the Taitt. 
Brahmana [iii. 1 1. 8]. Nachiketas, the son of Aruni,l| asks 
Death for a solution of his doubt whether man exists after 
death or not. After much reluctance, and after holding 
out enticements of all kinds, which Nachiketas withstands. 
Death at length initiates him into the mystery of exist- 
ence. Life and death, he says, are but two different phases 
of development ; true wisdom consists in the perception of 
identity with the Supreme Spirit, whereby men are ele- 
vated above life and death. The exposition in this first part 
is really impressive : the diction, too, is for the most part 
antique. A few passages, which do not harmonise at all 
with the remainder, seem either to have been inserted at 
a later time, or else, on the contrary, to have been retained 

* Two lists of the Atbarvopani- || Two other names, which are 
shads in Chambers’s Collection (see given to the f.ather of Nachiketas, 
ray Cabilogne, p. 95) cite after these viz., Auddalaki and Vtfja 4, 
two (39, 40), also a worf/tyaroZrt conflict with the usual accounts, 

and an utlaravalli Ul, 42) ! V.-ljasravasa appears also in the pas- 

+ I 3 v Colebrooke it is reckoned as sage above referred to of the Tait- 
two Upanishads. tiriya-Brdhmana ; whether Auddd- 

J Thu.s we have visasaija instead haki does so likewise I am unable to 
of vya-cha-sarja ; Kanydkamdritn in- say. [ Audddlaki is wanting in the 
stead of JEVtZydyanyai instead of T. Br., as also the whole p.assage 
oyaudya, &c. itself.] Benfey (in the Ooltinger 

§ See /. St., ii. 195, £F., where the Gekhrte Anzeigen, January 1852, p. 
various translations and editions are 129) suggests that we should refer 
cited. Since then this Upanishad Audddlaki Aruni to Nachiketas ; but 
has appeared in a new edition, wiih the incompatibility of the two names 
^aipkam’s commentary, in the liibl. is not thereby removed. AruijiisUd- 
Indica, vol. viii., edited by Dr. lloer ddlaka, and Audddlaki is Aru^eya. 
[and translated in vol. xv.]. 



purpose. Its polemics 





They are directed 

from a former exposition drawn up more for a liturgical 


opinions are very sharp and bitter, 
against tarTm,'^ doubt/’ by which the Samkhyas and Baud- 
dhas are here probably intended. The sacredness of the 
word <m as the expression for the eternal position of things 
is very specially emphasised, a thing which has not occurred 
before in the same way. The gradation of the primeval 
principles (in iii. lo, 1 1) exactly corresponds to the system 
of the deistical Yoga, whereas otherwise the exposition 
bears a purely Vedandc character. 

Of the Atharvopanisliads proper the Mundaka- and 

Upanishads (21, 22) connect tliemselves most 
closely with the Upanishads of the older Vedas and with 
tlie Vedanta doctrine ; indeed, in the Vodtinta-Sutra 
of Badarayana reference is made to them quite as often 
as to these others. The Mundaka- Upanwhad, mostly in 
verse, and so called because it “ shears ” away, or frees 
from, all error, is very like the Katliakop. with regard 
to doctrine and style ; it has, in fact, several passages in 
common with it. At the outset it announces itself as an 
almost direct revelation of Brahman himself. For Afigiras, 
who communicates it to ^aunaka, has obtained it from 
Bharadvaja Satyavaha, and the latter again from Angir,* 
the pupil of Atharvan, to whom it was revealed by Brah- 

The list of the Atharvopani- 
ftliads begins, as a with the 

Mundako[>anishacl ; and, according 
to the statements in Narayanabhat- 
tin scholium on the siiMlIcr Ath. 
Upanishads now being edited (since 
1872) in the BibL Indica by Rama- 
inaya Tarkaratna, a settled order of 
tiiesG Uptnishads must still have 
been in existence in the time of 
N'arayanabhiitta, since he dernttes 
the iinlividnal Upanishads as, e.^., 
tlie seventh, tlie eighth, &c., reckon- 
ing from the Mnnd ika, This order 
is occasionally ascribed by him to 
the Saunaka-school. Compare as to 
this the remarks of Colebrooke, Misc, 
Ess.y i. 93, according to which the 
first fifteen Upanishads only would 
belong to the Sauuukiyaa, and the 

following Up. to other ^dkbds. But 

witli whom, as regards 
the order of the first twenty-eight 
names, Colebrooke agrees in the 
main (from this point their state- 
ments dilTer), also quotes the ^auna- 
kiUfranlhnvistara for the Brahina- 
vindu No. i8, and the kikhd 
Saannkavartitd for the Atniopani- 
shad No. 28, as authority for these 
numbers, or i>Iaces, of the two Up- 
aiiishads, Tlie Qopdlatdpani, how- 
ever, is marked by liim as the forty- 
sixth ^ Atkarva-Paippahy' and the 
Vasndevopanishad as tlie forty-ninth 
‘ kshadragrantha'jnnc / ’ see Ihijen- 
dra L;ila Mitni, Xotices of Sanskrit 
MSS,^ i. 18 (1870). 

* Ailgir is a name which occurs 
nowhere else. 



man himself. Shortly afterwards, Vedic literature is op- 
posed, as the inferior science, to speculation. Tlie fornici 
is stated to consist of the four Vedas, and of the six 
Vedangas, whicli are singly enumerated. Some manu- 
scripts here insert mention of the itihdsa-purdna-nydya- 
mimdnsd-dlmrma^dstrdni ; but tliis is evidently a later 
addition. Such additions are also found in other passages 
of this Upaiiishad in the manuscripts. This enumeration 
(here occurring for the first time) of the different Vedangas 
is of itself suilicient to show that at that time the whole 
material of the Vedas liad been sy.stematically digested, 
and that otit of it a new literature had arisen, which no 
longer belongs to the Vedic, but to the following period. 
We may further conclude from the mention of the Treta 
in the course of the work that the Yuga-system also had 
already attained its final form. On -the other hand, we 
here find the words hdli (the dark one) and kardli (the 
terrible one) still reckoned among the seven tongues of 
fire, whereas in the time of the dramatic poet Bhavabhiiti 
(eighth century a.d.) they are names of Durga — the wife of 
Siva, developed out of Agni (and Rudra) — who under these 
names was the object of a bloody sacrificial worship. Since 
evidently a considerable time is required for the transition 
from the former meaning to the Litter, the Mundakop. 
must be separated by a very wide interval from the date 
of Bhavabhuti, — a conclusion which follows besides from 
the circumstance that it is on several occasions turned to 

account in the Vediinta-Sutra, and that it has been com- 

/ ' 

men ted by Sainkara. — The Prainopanishad/in prose, seems 
to be borrowed from an Atharva-Brahmana, viz., that of 
the Pippalada-school.* It contains the instruction by 
Pippalada of six different teachers, amongst whom the 
following names are especially significant in regard to the 
date of the Upanishad: Kau.4alya A^valayana, Vaidarbhi 
Bhargava, and Kabandhin Katyayana. In the course of 

* In the colophons, at least, it is Pippaliula is probably t i be tract'd 
once so described ; by Sanikara, too, to tlie coiio^'ption found in the 
at the beginning of his coinin''ntary, verse of the iMiindaka iii. r (taken 
it is called 6rdA??ia«a, alth<jugli this from Rik mr/J/r/. i. 164. 20) (?). The 
proves but little, since with him all same verse recurs in the Sveti^vsa* 
the Upanishads he comments pass taropanishad iv. 6 and in Nir xiv 
a. iruti and brdhmana. — The name 30. 


the work Hiranyanabha, a prince of the Ko^alas, is also 
mentioned, — the same doubtless wlio is specially extolled 
in the Puranas. As in the Mundako])an., so here also some 
interpolated words are found which betray tliemselves as 
such by tlie fact that they are passed over by ^amkara in 
his commentary. They refer to Atharvan himself, and to 
the half mdtrd (mora), to which the word om, here appear- 
ing in its full glory, is entitled in addition to its three moraj 
(a, u, trC), and are evidently a later addition by some one 
who did not like to miss the mention of these two subjects 
in an Atharvopanishad, as in these they otherwise invari- 
ably occur. Both Mundaka and Pra^na have been several 
times edited and translated, see I. St., i. 280, ff., 439, ff., 
again recently by Dr. Roer in vol. viii. of the Bibliotheca 
Indica together with ^arnkara’s commentary.^^® — The name 
of Pippalada is borne by another Upanishad, the Garhha- 
Upanishad (23), which I add here for this reason, although 
in other respects this is not quite its proper place. Its 
contents differ from those of all the other Upanishads, and 
relate to the human body, to its formation as embryo and the 
various parts of which it is composed, and the number and 
weight of these. The whole is a commentary on a tri- 
shfvbh strophe prefixed to it, the words of which are passed 
in review singly and further remarks then subjoined. The 
mention of the names of the seven musical notes of the 
present day, as well as of the weights now in use (which 
are found besides in Varaha Mihira), brings us to a toler- 
ably modern date ; so also the use of Devadatta in the 
sense of Cams. A few passages in which, among other 
things, mention is made, for instance, of Narayana as 
Supreme Lord, and of the Samkhya and Yoga as the 
means of attaining knowledge of him, reappear in the 
fourteenth book — -a supplementary one — of Yaska’s Nir- 


Whether Samkara expounded this Upanishad is 

as yet uncertain. It is translated in Ind. Stud., ii. 65- 
71.^'^® — In the Brahmopanishad also (24), Pippalada ap- 
pears, here with the title bhagavdn Ahgirds ; he is thus 
identified with the latter, as the authority for the particular 

Roer's translation is published 1872; in his introduction descril)ed 
in vol. XV. of the 5 / 5 ?, /ndzca (1853). as f>anchahhand(i ^shiamdn (read 
Edited with Ndriyana's com- ®mi/) Munddt Paippaldddhhidhd 
mentary in the Bibliotheca InCCica, tathd. 



doctrine here taught which he imparts to Sauuaka (makdr 
6 dla), exactly as is the case in the Mundakopanishad. 
There is, for tlie rest, a considerable difference between 
this Upanishad and the Mundaka and Praina; it be- 
longs more to the Yoga-Upanishads properly so called. 
It consists of two sections : the first, wliich is in prose, 
treats, in the first place, of the majesty of Atman ; and 
later on, in its last portion, it alleges Ih'ahman, Vishnu, 
■Riidra, and Akshara to be the four -pddas (feet) of the 
nirvdnam brahma ; the first eleven of the nineteen verses 
of the second section discuss the subject of the Yogin 
being allowed to lay aside his yajnopav-Ua, or sacred thread, 
as he stands in the most intimate relation to the sdtra, or 
mundane thread; the whole therefore amounts to a mere play 
upon words. The last eight verses are borrowed from the 
SvetiUvataropanishad, Mundakopanishad, and similar Upa- 
nishads, and again describe the majesty of the One. — The 
Mdi)(luhyopanishad (25-28) is reckoned as consisting of 
four IJpanishads, but only the prose portion of the first of 
these, which treats of the three and a half mdtras of the 
word om, is to be looked upon as the real Mandiikyopani- 
shad, all the rest is the work of Gaudapada,* whose pupil 
Govinda was the teacher of ^amkara; it dates therefore 
from about the seventh century a.d. Similarly, there are 
two works by ^ainkara himself specified among the Upa- 
nishads, viz., the Aptavajrasdchi (29), in prose, and the 
Tripwri (30), likewise in prose; both composed in a Ve- 
danta sense. The former treats at the outset of what 
makes a Brdhmana a Brdhmam; it is not jdti (birth), 
varna (colour), pdnditya (learning) ; but the Brahmavid 
(he who knows Brahvian) is alone a Brdhmana.'\ Then 
it passes to the different definitions of moksha (liberation), 

Edited with Nflrdyaija’s comm, entire Mfindiikyopanishad tr)gether 
in £ibl. Ind. 1873 ; in the introduc- with ^aipkara’s comm, in Bibl. Ind. 
tion described as cliatushkhandd vol. viii., also a translation of sect, 
daiami ; the two sections of the i in vol. xv,] 

text seem to have been transposed + This portion has been used by 
in some of the MSS. a IhuhUiist (A 4 vaghosha), almost 

* As such, it has been commented literally, against the system of caste 
on bySaipkara under the titled^awwt- in general, in the tract of the same 
AUfm. For particulars see /. ii. title which is given by Giklemeister, 
100-109. [Roer has published the BibL 8 ,, Praef. p. vi. not. ; see also 


i 62 


stating the only correct one to be the perception of the 
oneness oijiva (the individual soul) parameSvara (the 
All-Soul), and lastly, distinctly rejecting all sects, it ex- 
pounds the two highly important words tat (the Absolute) 
and tvam (the Objective). ‘ The Tripuri treats of the rela- 
tion of Atman to the world, and stands as fourtli prakarana 
in a series of seven little Vedanta writings attributed to 
^amkara.^^ The Sarwpamshatsdrojjanislmd (3 1 ), in prose, 
may be considered as a kind of catechism of these doctrines; 
its purpose is to answer several queries prefixed to it as an 
introduction.^'^ The same is the case with the Nirdlam- 
hopanishad (32),^®* whicli, however, exhibits essentially 
the Yoga standpoint. The Atmopanisliad (33), in prose, 
contains an inquiry by Angiras into tine three factors 
(puruslias), the body, tlie soul, and the All-Soul* The 
Prdndgnihotropanishad (34), in ])rose, points out the rela- 
tion of the parts and functions of the body to those of the 
sacrifice, whence by implication it follows that the latter 
is unnecessary. At its conclusion it promises to him who 
reads this IJpanishad the same reward as he receives 
M'ho expires in Varanasi, viz., deliverance from transmigra- 
tion.'^®^ The ArsMTcopanishad (? 35) contains a dialogue 
on the nature of Atman between Vi^vamitra. Jamadacrni, 
Bharadvdja, Gautama, and Vasishtha, the last of whom, 
appealing to the opinion of “K’hak” (? another MS. in 
Anquetil has “ Kapl” = Kapila ?), obtains the assent of the 

Bumouf, Introd. d VHist. du Buddh, 
Tnd,y p. 215. [Text and translation 
see now in my cs.say Die VajrcLSixchi 
des Ahaghosha (i860). By Ilaugr, 
Brahman imd die Hrahmanen^ p. 29, 
the Upanishad is described as idma- 
vedo 1 ctd,~\ 

See my Catalo«:ue of the Berlin 
MSS., p. 180. By Rdjendra Ldla 
Mitra, however (Notices of Sanskrit 
MSS.f i. 10, ll), a different text is 
cited as the irtmxichhamkardcluirya' 
virackitd tri-puryupanishad. 

See I, St, i. 301 ; edited witli 
NiliTiyana’s comm. \r\Bihl. ImL 1874; 
de.^crihed in the introd. as Taittiri* 
yoke 1 saiTopanishaddm sdrah sapta- 
tri/ise chaiurdait (! I). 

See Kdjendra Lala Mitra, ii. 95. 
Taylor, Catalogue of Oriental 
of the College Fort St, George, ii. 

* Translated in /. St, ii. 56, 57. 
[Text and Ndruyana’s comm, in Bibl. 
Ind. 1873; described in the introd. aa 
khandalraydnvitd \ ashtiUniiii gran^ 
IhasaTfighe sdkhd ^unakavartitd , ] 

Text and Niirdyana's comm, in 
BihL Jnd, 1873; described in thr 
introd, a.s ekdda^l Saunakiye ; sec 
Taylor, ii, 472. Rdjendra L. M. i. 
49, Bnrnell. Catalogue, ]>. 63. 

See /. St, ix. 48-52. The 
name of the Upanishad is not yet 



The second class of the Atharvopanishad s, as above 
stated, is made up of those whose subject is Yoga, or 
absorption in Atman, the stages of this absorption, and the 
external means of attaining it. These last chiefly consist 
in the giving up of all earthly connections, and in the 
frequent repetition of the word om, which plays a most 
prominent part, and is itself therefore the subject of deep 
study. Yajnavalkya is repeatedly named in the Upani- 
shads of this class as the teacher of the doctrines they set 
forth;* and indeed it would seem that we ought to look upon 
him as one of the chief promoters of the system of religious 
mendicancy so intimately associated with the Yoga-doctrine. 
Thus, in the Tdrakopanishad (36) he instructs Bharadvaja 
as to the saving and sin- dispelling efficacy of the word 
om,}^ and similarly in the ^dkalyopanisJiad (37)* ^dkalya 
as to true emancipation .1®* The one, however, in which he 
stands out most prominently is the Jdibdlopanishad (38), 
in prose, which, moreover, bears the name of a school of 
the White Yajus, although no doubt wrongly, as it must 
in any case be considered as merely an imitation of the 
Aranyaka of this Veda (see 7 . St., ii. 72-77). Still, it 
must have been composed before the Badarayana-Siitra, 
as several passages of itf seem to be given in the 
latter (unless these passages have been borrowed from 
a common source?). Of special importance with regard 
to the mode of life of the Paramahaiisa.?, or religious 
mendicants, are also, in addition to the Upanisbad just 
mentioned, the Kalhasruti (39; Oolebrooke gives the 
name incorrectly as Kanlhairuti) , in prose, and the 
Arunikppanishad (40), likewise in prose ; $ both are to be 

See L St,^ ix, 46-48. jendra L. M. i. 92 (Commentary by 

• This name seemn to result as Saipkardiianda). There are, besides, 
the most probable one from com- quite a number of other Upanishads 
parison of the viurji^nts in Anquetil. bearing the name of Jdbdla, viz., 
^ See I. SLj 170. Hphajjdbdla, Mahdjdbdla, Laghu- 

t They presuppose the name Vd- ja' al >, lihasrna®, Rudra% Rudrd- 
rd^^i for Benares, [The text of 

the Jifhdlopanishad with Ndrdyana*s J Translated in I, jSf., ii. 176- 
cotnm. appeared in BibL Ind. 1874; 181. [Text and Ndrdyana’s comm, 

it is described in the iiitrod. as in BibL Ind.^ *872; described in 

and tkachatvdriniaUami (the the iiitrod, as p^iichavin^. There 
latter, however, is said of the is also a commentary upon it by 
KaivalyopanUhad also!); see also Saqikardnanda ; see Rdjendra L, M. 
Burnell, p, 61, Taylor iL 474, Rd- i 92. — The Kaihairuti^ also, -is 

VED fC L/ 7 ERA 7 URE. 


regarded as supplements to the Aranyaka of the Black 
Yajus, as the Jabalopanishad is to that of the White 
Yajus. The Bhdllavu Upanishad (41) also belongs to this 
class, to judge by quotations from it, and so does the 
Samvartairuti (42); similarly the Samnydsopanishad (43) 
and the Paramahansopanishad (44), both in prose * The 
Hansopanishad (45) I have not yet met with ; but from 
its name it probably also belongs to tliis place.^®® Tlie 
ASramopanisJuid (46), in prose, gives a classification of 
the four Indian orders — the Brahmacharins, Grihasthas, 
Viinaprasthas, and Parivrdjakas. It is even quoted by 
^amkara, and the names applied in it to the several classes 
arc now obsolete. The ^rimaddattopanishad (47) consists 
of twelve Uohis put into the mouth of one of these reli- 
gious mendicants, and uniformly concluding with the 
refrain : ta&yd ’ham panchamd^ramam, “ I am his, i.e., 
hrahmans, fifth A. 4 rama.” Apart from the two Upanishads 
already mentioned, tlie Miindiikya and the Taraka, the 
investigation of the sacred w'ord 0771 is ])rincipally con- 
ducted in the Atharvasikhd (48), in prose (explained by 
^ainkara), in wdiich instruction is given on this subject by 
Atharvan to Pippalada, Sanatkumara, and Angiras ; t 
further, in the Brahmamdyd (49), in thirteen ilokas, now 
and then quoted by Samkara;J and lastly, in \\\Q&aunaka 

edited in Blhl, Ind, (1873), with anuvdkat of tho Atb. S. (xviii.); 
Ndrdyana’s commentary ; althougli . their text i» therefore given by the 
under tlie name Ka ntba*, it is clear editor in the scholium, and that in 
from Ndnivana’a words in his intro- a double form acc. to two MSS. (pp. 
duction, Yajurvtde in Charakddvd- 131-175); see also Rdjendra L. M. 
dami^shdkantJuUvayah[\) \ samnyd- i. 54, Taylor, ii. 469.] , 

8 opanUhaittdiidchaiahkhanddkfita{\) Text and Ndr.’s comm, in Bibl, 

ivutih II that this inode of spelling 1874 ; described in the introd. 

here, an well as in Burneirs Oata- as ashiatrhUaUaml \ dtkai^vane. By 
lo<ju€i p. 60, is a mere mistake, and Rdjendraldl., i. 90, a comm, by 
that Ndrdyana himself connected 5 §aipkardnanda is specified ; see be- 
the Upanishad with the Kathas ; see sides Burnell, p. 65. 
also Biihler, Catalogue of MSS, from t See /, ii, 55. — Here, there* 
Qu.j,y i. 58.] fore, we have Pippaldda and Angiras 

* The Pavamahamopwaidiad is appearing side by .side (see above^ 
tran.slated in I. St,, ii,, I 73 “^ 7 ^* P- [Text and Ndr.'s comm. 

[Text with Nar.’s comm, in Bihl, in Bihl. Ind.^ 1873 ; described in 
Ind,, 1874; described in the introd. as the introd. as saptaml miniddtJ] 
irilchandd *thai*vaMkhare cltatvdrin- J Translated in /. St.y ii. 5S. 
kttiuml, — The Samnydaopam shady [Text and NYir.’s comm, in BibL 
too, i.s printed ihid,y 1872 ; we there Ind,y 1873.] 

£ud a direct reference made to four 



(50) and the Pranava (51). These two are found in 
Anquetil only.^^ The various stages of gradual absorp- 
tion into Atman form the contents :f the following 
Upanishads (52-59): Hansandda (in prose), Kshurikd 
(24 sloJcas), Nddavindii (20 ^lokas), Bralmimhuhi (22 
Uokas ; also cdWcd Amritavindu), Amritavindu (38 slokas; 
also called Amritandda)^ Dhydnavindu (23 slokas), Yoga- 
sikhd (10 ilokas), and Yogatattva (15 Uokas)-, while the 
majesty of Atman liimself is depicted in the Glvdlikd 
(60, in 21 ilokas) and Tcjovindii (61, in 14 Uokas) : * in the 
former direct reference is repeatedly hiade to the doctrine 
of the Atharvans, The range of ideas and the style are 
quite identical in all the Upanishads just enumerated. 
The latter frequently suffers from great obscurity, partly 
because there occur distinct grammatical inaccuracies, 
partly because the construction is often very broken and 
without unity. Many verses recur in several of them; 
many again are boiTOwed from the ^vetiiivataropanishad 
or Maitrdyanopanishad. Contempt for caste as well as 
for writing (grantha) is a trait which appears again and 
again in almost all these Upanishads, and one might 
therefore be inclined to regard them as directly Buddhistic, 
were they not entirely free from all Buddhistic dogma. 
This agreement is to be explained simply by the fact that 
Buddhism itself must be considered as having been origi- 
nally only a form of the Samkhya-doctrine. 

The sectarian Upanishads have been set down as form- 
ing the third class. They substitute for Atman one of the 
forms of Vishnu or ^iva, the earlier ones following the 
Yoga-doctrine most closely, whilst in those of a modem 
date the personal element of the respective deities comes 

See 7 , Sty ix. 52-53 and 49- 

52; tlie Pranawpanishad is men- 
tioned by Taylor, ii, 328. 

* For the HanMih(U(ii see /. St.y 
i. 3 ^ 5 “ 3 ^ 7 ; Kshurikd is trans- 
lated, ih,y ii, 171-173; likewise^ 
tavindvy ii, 59-62; TejovindUy u. 
62-64: Dhydnavinduy ii, 1-5 ; Yo- 
gasikitfi [so we ought to read] and 

Yogatattvay ii. 47-50, [Amritaudda, 
ix. 23-28; Chillihly ix. 10-21. All 

these Upanishads are iiow piiblisited 
in the Bibliotheca Indica with Naid- 

yjina’s comm. (1872-73), excep- 

titigthe ffansunddoi/uynshady which, 

however, seems to be identical with 

the Hmistpayiiskiod printed ibid. 

In the Introductions to the comm, 

Chulikd is described as paiirlutml ; 

Bnthviaviitdu as ash tddnsi Sauiut^ 


kagravihavlHare ; Dhyduavindn as 
7 'iusd {vinHl) ; 'Pejovindu as ekavin* 
ktm; Yogaiikhd as yranthasaudohc()) 
dvdlriMatilaml (probably meant for 
dmrim '* !) ; Yorjatativa as irayovinki 


vEDic Liter A tVre, 

more and more into the foreground. A special charac* 
teristic of this class are the unmeasured promises usually 
held out at the close of the work to him who reads and 
studies it, as also the quotation and veneration of sacred 
formulas containing the name of the particular deity. 

First, as regards the Upanishads of the Fw 7 m«-sects, — 
the oldest form under which Vishnu is worshipped is 
Nd/rdyarja,. W e find this name for the first time in the 
second part of the ^atapatha-Brahmana, where, however, 
it is not in any way connected with Vishnu; it rather 
stands, as at the commencement of Manu and the Vishnu- 
Purana, in the sense of Brahman (mascul.). This is also 
the case in the Narayaniyopanishad of the Taittiriya- 
Aranyaka, and in its Atharvan-recension as Brihannara- 
yanopanishad, although in the latter lie is at least called 
Hari, and in one passage brought into direct relation to 
Vasudeva and Vishnu. It is in the Mahd-Uj)anishad 
(62), — a prose tract, which* in its first part contains 
the emanation of the' universe from Narayana, and in its 
second a paraphrase of the principal passage of tlie Nara- 
yaniyopanishad, — ^that Ndrayai^^a first distinctly wpears as 
the representative of Vishnu, since ^dlapaiji (Siva) and 
Brahman proceed from him, and Vishnu is not mentioned at 
all. In the Ndvdyavix^panishad (64, in prose),^®^ on the 
contrary, Vishiju also emanates from him, exactly as in the 
Ndrdyana section t of the twelfth book of the Mahd-Bha- 
rata (a book which in other respects also is of special sig- 
nificance in relation to the Samkhya- and Yoga-doctrines). 
The sacred formula here taught is : om namo Ndrdyandya, 
There exists of this Upanishad another, probably a later, 
recension which forms part of the Atharva^iras to be men- 
tioned hereafter, and in w’^hich Devaki'putra Madhusddana 
is mentioned as particularly hrahmanya, pious, as is also 
the case in th.Q AtmaprdbodJm-Upanishad {65), which like- 

Translated in /. St,^ ii, 5-8 [see 
also Taylor, ii. 468, R^jendra L. M. 
i. 25] ; besides it there must have 
existed another Mahd^Upan, (63), 
wli ich is cited by the adherents of the 
lliidhava sect as a warrant for their 
belief in a personal soul of the uni- 
verse, distinct from the soul of man. 

See also Rdjoiidra L. M. i, 12, 
91 (comm, by J^aipkardnandii). 

+ At the time of the (last?) ar- 
rangement of the present text of the 
Mabd - Bhdrata, Ndriiyana worshiji 
must have been particularly flourish* 


wise celebrates Narayana as the Supreme Lord;^^ see L 
St., ii. 8, 9. He (Narayana) is named, besides, in the 
same quality in the Garbhopanishad (in a passage re- 
curring in the Nirukti, xiv.) and in the Sakalyopanishad. 

The second form under which we find Vishnu wor- 
shipped is Nrisinha. The earliest mention of him hitherto 
known appears in the Taitt. Ar., x. i. 8 (in the Narayani- 
yop.), under the name of Narasihha, and with the epithets 
vajranalcha and HJcshnadansht'>'a. The only Upanishad in 
which he is worshipped is the Nrisinhattipaniyopanishad 
(in prose). It is relatively of considerable extent, and 
is also counted as six separate Upanishads (66-71), as it 
consists of two parts,* the first of which is in turn subdi- 
vided into five distinct Upanishads. The first part treats 
of the Anushtubh-formula f sacred to Hrisinha, the Tnan- 
trardja ndrasinha dnushfubha, with which the most won- 
drous tricks are played ; wherein we have to recognise the 
first beginnings of the later Malamantras with their Tan- 
tra-ceremonial. A great portion of the Mdndiikyopanishad 
is incorporated into it, and the existence also of the Athar- 
vadikha is presupposed, as it is directly quoted. The 
contents of the second part are of a more speculative 
character ; but in respect of mystical trifling it does not 
yield to the first part. In both, the triad — Brahman, 
Vishnu, and ^iva — is repeatedly mentioned. As regards 
language, the expression buddha for the supreme Atman, 
which occurs (along with nitya, iuddlia, satya, mukta, &c.) 
in the second part, is of peculiar interest ; and the expres- 
sion is still retained in Gaudapdda and Samkara; originally 
it belongs evidently to the Samkhya school (see above, pp. 
27, 129). 

This Upanishad has been interpreted by Gaudapada 
and Samkara; and in addition to much that is quite 
modern, it lucsents a great deal that is ancient. It pro- 
bably dates from about the fourth century A.D., as at that 

Soo also Ililjtfiidra L. M., iii, 
36 ; Taylor, ii, 328. 

* 'riie above-mentioned lists of 
Upanishads in the Chambers collec- 
tion admit a Madhyatdpini also [see 
my Catalogue, p. 95]. 
t It runs vgrarp vtrarp mahdmh^ 

num jval<intam S'trvatomukha7n | 

nrisinham bhUhanarfi hhadra/m 

• • • ♦ 

Virilyumrityum namdmy aham, || “ I 
worship the terrible, powerful, 
mighty Vishnu, the flaming, the om- 
nipresent ; Nfisiuha, the dread, the 
holy one, the death of deatlu” 



time the Nrisinha worship flourished on the western coast 
of India, while otherwise Ave And no traces of it,^®® 

The Rdmatdpaniyopanishad (72, 73), in which Eama is 
worshipped as the Supreme God, shows a great resemblance 
to the Nrisifihatdpaniyop., especially in its second part. 
This second part, which is in pi'ose, is, properly speaking, 
nothing but a collection of pieces from the Tarakopanishad, 
Mandiikyopanishad, Jabalopanishad, and Nrisihliopani- 
shad, naturally with tlie necessary alterations. Yajna- 
valkya here appears as the proclaimer of the divine glory 
of Kama. A London MS. adds at the close a long passage 
which is unknown to the commentator Anandavana (a 
native of the town Kundina). The crowning touch of the 
sectarian element in this Upanishad is found in the cir- 
cumstance that Rama is implored by Siva (l^amkara) him- 
self to spare those a second birth who die in Manikarnika 
or in the Gafiga geiKU’ally, the two principal seats of the 
^iva worship. The first part, in ninety-five ilokas, contains 
at the beginning a short sketch of Rama’s life, which bears 
a great similarity to that at the beginning of the Adhyat- 
maramayana (in the Brahmanda-Purana). The Mantraraja 
is next taught by the help of a mystical alphabet, speci- 
ally invented for the purpose.* This Upanishad evidently 
belongs to the school of Ramanuja, possibly to Ramanuja 
himself, consequently its earliest date would be the 
eleventh century a.d.^®® 

Under the names Vishnu, Purushottama, and Vasudeva, 
Vishnu is mentioned as the supreme Atman in several 

See text and translation of this 
Upanishad in I. ix. 53-173 ; and 
speciallj' on the chronological ques- 
tion, pp. 62, 63. In the fUbl, In- 
dka also, this Upanishad has been 
published by Rdmaniaya Tarkaratna 
(1870-71), with J^nmkara’s commen- 
tary (it is, however, doubtful whe- 
ther the commentary on tlie second 
part belongs to 6aqikara), together 
w’vh th*‘s'iMll {Xdrasinha) shaichah 
ropanisbad and Narayanans ciunm. 

on it. 

* Tiie Ndrasinha- and a Vdraha- 
Manfra arc also mentioned. 

See text and translation in mv 
caaay Die Kdma - Tdpauhja- 

shad (1864) ; text and Ndrdy.'a 
comm, in Bill, Jnd, also {1873) J 
the introductions the two sectionsare 
called pailchatriMattama and shat- 
trinki respectively, Tlie time of 
composition is proi)ably even later 
than above supposed. In the first 
place, according to Nrisinhanfi state- 
ments in liis Smrityarthasdra (see 
Aufreclit, Caialoyus, pp, 285^, 286*), 
Rdmdnuja flourished as late as the 
twelfth century {ktke 1049 z= a.d, 
1127). But further, the Kamata|)anl 
displays still closer relations to Ihimd- 
nanda, who is supposed to have lived 
towards the end of the fourteenti/ 
century ; see my essay, p. 382. 


IJpanishads ; * Krishna Devaki'putra appears likewise in 
some of them (the Atmaprahodha and Nardyana), not, 
however, as supreme Atman, but merely, as in the Chhan- 
dogyop., as a particularly pious sage. It is in the Go- 
‘pdlatdpaniyopanishod (74, 75) that we first find liim ele- 
vated to divine dignity. Of this Upanisliad, the second 
part at least, in ])rose, is known to me.f It treats 
first of the fjopis of Mathura and Vrnja, then it passes to 
the identification of Mathura with Bralimapura, &c. ; and 
it belongs witliout doubt to a very modern period, as it ex- 
hibits liardly any points of contact with other Upanishads 
in regard to contents and language.^®^ The Gopicliandano- 
'panishnd {y 6 ) also probably belongs to this place I 
know it only by name. 

At the head of the Upanishads belonging to the Siva- 
sccts stands, according to the use that has been made of 
it, the ^atarudriya. I have already remarked, however, 
that this^is nothing but an abuse. In its germs the wor- 
ship of Siva may be traced even in the later portions of 
the Yajus.J He appears very prominently as Maludeva 
in a portion of the ISrarayani'yopanishad. and here he is 
already associated with his spouse. The Sveta^vataropani- 
shad also pays homage to him. Among the Atharvo- 
panishads the most ancient in this regard is the Kaivalyo- 
panisliad (77), a mixture of prose and Alohas, in which 
hhagavdn mahddevah himself instructs Asvalayana con- 
cerning his own majesty ; in a similar way he acts as his 
own herald § in the Atharvanras (78), in prose. The latter 

* And also, in particular, under 
tlie name Vdsudeva, in the writings 
ascribed to Saipkara, 

+ The lists in the Chambers collec* 
tion specify a Gopdfatdpini, Madkpa^ 
tdpini, UftaraUijnni, and Brikadut- 
taratdpiui I 

Tlie text of this Upanisliad, 
with Vi^vcHvara’s commentary, is 
printed in the Bill, Indica (1870), 
edited by Ilarachandra Yidyitlihd- 
shana and Yisvandthai^dstrin. Oc- 
casionally extracts arc added from 
the commentaries bv Ndrdvana and 

V • « 

Jiragosvdmin. According to lidjcn- 
dral., i. 18, its first section is do- 
Bcrilied in Ndrdyapa’s introduction 

as ska^ch atrdriniati eha puiytd chd 
Hharvapaippalc an analysis of 
the second section in Taylor, ii. 472. 

So also according to Rdjcn* 
drab, i. 20 (comm, by Ndr.), 60; it 
isspccially ‘‘a treatise on the merits 
of jmtting on secfarial marks on the 
forehead with an oclirous earth, 
called gopichandana.^^ 

J As in the Atharva-Sumhitd and 
in the »^dnkhdyana-Hrdhmana (see 
pp. 45, no), 

§ Like Krishna in the Bhagavad- 
gitd. The Kaivalyopanishad is 
translated /. ii. 9-14 ; on Atha$*^ 
vaiiras see i. i‘p. 382-385, 

[Text of, and two commentaries on, 



(Jpauishad has been expounded by ^amkara. Under the 
same title, “ head of Atharvan,” — a name that is also borne 
by Brahman himself, although in a different relation, 
there exists a second Upanishad, itself a conglomeration of 
five different Upanishads referring to the five principal 
deities, Ganapati (79), Narayana, Kudra, Siirya (80), and 
Devf (81).* Its Ndrayana-portion is a later recension of 
the Nardyaijopanishad (64, see above, p. 166), and the 
Rudra-portion follows the first chapter of the Atharva^iras 
proper. All five have been translated by Vans Kennedy. 
In the Maha-Bharata (i. 2882), and the Code of Vishnu, 
where the Atharva^iras is mentioned along with the RM- 
run^dni sd'nidni,Qxi^ in Vishnu also, where it appears beside 


kara (?) . 


d Alh 

> ^ -c. • Jt 

to me only through tlie Catalogue of the India Ofi&ce Library. 
Possibly they are identical with those already named ; 1 
therefore exclude them from my list. The Mrityvlarigh- 
anopanishad (82) t is quite modern, and with it is wor- 

the Kaivalyopanishad printed in 
BihL Ind,, 1874; the first cominen* 
tary is that of Ndrdya^ia ; the second 
w described by the editor as that of 
Saipkara, in the colophon as that of 
^arpkardnanda ; it follows, however, 
from ^endra Ldia Mitra’s Cota- 
logue^ i, 32, that it is different from 
the commentary written by the lat- 
ter ; and according to the same 
authority, ii. 247, it is identical 
rather with thatoi Vidydranya. In 
Ndrdyana’s introduction this Upa- 
nishad is described (exactly like the 
Jdbdlop. !) as ekachatvdriniftUamu 
The Sira$~ or .di/ia7t?a3zm5 - Upani- 
shad is likewise printed in BibL 
Ind, (1872), with Ndrdyana's comm., 
which describes it as rudrddhydyah 
taptalchandah. See also Rdjendral., 

i. 32 (comm, by 6arpkardnanda), 

* See 7 . 53, and Vans Ken- 

nedy, Researches into the Nature and 
AffinUy of Hindu and Ancient Mylho^ 
P- 442, [Taylor, ii. 469- 
471. By Rdjendral., i. 61, a Qdna- 

>anishad is men- 
tioned ; by Biihler' Cat, of MSS, 

/ram i* 70, a Gas^apalipiii'vatd^ 
pini and a Oai^eSatdpini ; and by 
Kielhorn^iSan^im^ intheSauth- 
ern Division of the Bombay Pres, 
(1869), p, 14, a Ga^apatipdrvatd- 

f So we have probably to imiler- 
stand AnqnetiPs Ararat Lnnkoul^ 
since he has also another form, Mrat 
Lanlcoun; instead of, idest ^haliins 
moTliSy we ought to read ^ salitus 
mortis* [See now 7 St.y ix. 21-23 5 
according to this it is doubtful whe- 
ther the name ought not to bo writ- 
ten MrihjuldngdlaiX), An Upanishad 
named Mrityidahghana is mentioned 
by Bill tier. Cat, of MSS, from Guj,^ 
i. 120 ; a Mrityuldngfila, however, 
appears as 82d Upanishad in the 
Catalogue of Pandit Rd<lhdkrislipa’a 
library'. Finally, Burnell, in pub- 
lishing the text in the Indian Anti^ 
quary, ii. 266, gives the form Mpi^ 



thily associated the Kdldgnirudropanishad (83),^®* iii prose, 
of which there are no less than three different recensions, 
one of which belongs to the Nandike^vara-Upapurana. 
The Tripuropanishad (84) also appears from its name — 
otherwise it is unknown to me — to belong to this divi- 
sion ; it has been interpreted by Bhatta Bhaskara 
Mii^ra. The Skandopanishad (85), in fifteen Mokas, is also 
Siva-itic (likewise the Amriianddapanishad). The ado- 
ration of Siva’s spouse, his ^akti, — the origin of which may 
be traced back to the Kenopanishad and the Narayanfyo- 
panisbad, — is the subject of the SundarUdpaniyopanishad 
(known to me by name only), in five parts (86-90), as well 
as of the Devi- Upanishad (79), which has already been 
mentioned. The Kaulopanishad (91), in prose, also be- 
longs to a ^akta sectary.* 

Lastly, a few Upanishads (92-95) have to be mentioned, 
which are known to me only by their names, names which 
do not enable us to draw any conclusion as to their con- 
tents, viz., the Pividopanishad, Nilaruhopanishad (Cole- 
brooke has NUarudra), Faingalopanishad, and Dariano- 
vanishad}^ The Garudopanishad (96), of which I know 
two totally different texts, celebrates the serpent-destroyer 
Garuda,t mid is not without some antiquarian interest. 

It treats specially of the iri- sa^tavinsatipdranly the latter as iho- 

S un 4 ravidhi I see Taylor, i, 461 ; daU: it is juldressed to Kudra (see 
Idjendr, i. 59; llurnell, p. 61. also KdjendraU, 1. 51), and consists 
m See on it Taylor, ii. 470; Bur- only of vei*ses, which closely follow 
nell, p, 62. those contained in Vaj. S. xvi. Un 

“ Identifies biva with Vishnu, the Paingaloi). and Dar^anop,, see 
and teaches the doctrines of the Taylor, ii. 468-471. 

Advaita school.’* Taylor, ii. 467 ; t As is done m the Ndrdyanlyo- 
Burnell, p, 65. * fanishad also, and more especially 

* In\he Tejovindu (61) also, in the which is con- 

hrakman is described as dnava, tuhn- sidered to belong to the Rik [edited 
bhava, idkta. ' by Elinaar Grnbe, 1875; sec also /, 

The Pindop, and the Nllarud- St., xiv. I, fT.— The Gdrudopanuhad 
— this ifi ita proper name— are is now printed in Bibl. Jnd. (1874), 
now printed in BibL hid. (1873), with N^r^yana’s coinmcniary ; in 
with Ndrdyana’s comm.; the former, the introduction it is described lU 
which treats of the pindas to the chcUu^chcUvdriniatCaTnl.Ji 
pretas, is described by Kdr^ya^iaas 



( *75 ) 



Having thus followed the first period of Indian literature, 
in its several divisions, down to its close, we now turn to 
its second period, the so-called Sanskrit literature. Here, 
however, as our time is limited, we cannot enter so much 
into detail as we have hitherto done, and we must there- 
fore content ourselves with a general survey. In the case 
of the Vedic literature, details were especially essential, 
both because no full account of it had yet been given, and 
because the various works still lie, for the most part, shut 
up in the manuscripts ; whereas the Sanskrit literature 
has already been repeatedly handled, partially at least, and 
the principal works belonging to it are generally accessible. 

Our first task, naturally, is to fix the distinction between 
the second period and the first. This is, in part, one of 
age, in part, one of subject-matter. The former distinction 
is marked by the language and by direct data ; the latter 
by the nature of the subject-matter itself, as well as by 
the method of treating it. 

As regards the language, in the first place, in so far as 
it grounds a distinction in point of ^e between the two 
periods of Indian literature, its special characteristics in 
the second period, although apparently slight, are yet, in 
reality, so significant that it appropriately furnishes the 
name for the period ; whereas the earlier one receives its 

designation from the works composing it. 

Among the various dialects of the different Indo- Aryan 
tribes, a greater unity had in the course of time been 
establishe(l after their immigration into India, as the natural 
re.sult of their intermingling in their new homes, and of 



their combination into lurt^or comiiiuuities. The gram- 
matical * study, moreover, which by degrees became neces- 
sary for the interpretation of the ancient texts, and which 
grew up in connection therewitli, liad had the effect of 
substantially fixing the usage ; so that a generally re- 
cognised language, known as the hhdslid, had arisen, that, 
namely, in which the Brahmanas and Sutras are com- 
posed.f Now the greater the advance made by the study 
of grammar, the more stringent and precise its precepts 
and rules became, and all the more difficult it was for 
those who did not occupy themselves specially therewitli 
to keep in constant accord with grammatical accuracy. 
The more the language of the grammatically educated 
gained on the one liaud in purity, and in being purged of 
everything not strictly regular, the more foreign did it 
become on the other hand to the usage of the majoritv of 
the people, who were without grammatical training. In 
this way a refined language gradually disconnected itself 
from the vernacular, as more and more tlie e.xclusive pro- 
perty of the higher classes of the people ; J the estrange- 

* Respecting the use of the verb which the word hhdshya is used in 
vyrfW in a grammatical signification, the Gfihya Sutra of ^iukhdyana, 

Silya^a in his introduction to the namely, in contradistinction to 

(P- 35 * 22 ed, Muller) adduces shows that its meaning had already 
a legend from a Bnihmana, which by this time become essentially ino- 
represents ludra as the oldest gram- dified, and become restricted, pre- 
marian. (See Lassen,/. AK.y ii. cisely as it is in Pdnini, to the extra- 
4750 [The legend is tiiken from the Vedic, so to say, profane literature. 
TS. vi. 4. 7. 3, ^ All that Is there (The A^valiiyaua-Qfihya gives in- 
stated, indeed, is that vdch was stead of hhdshya^ in the correspond- 
ryd/jWfd by Iiulra ; manifestly, how- ing passage, bkdrata ~ viahdhhdrai a> 
ever, the later myths which do actu- dharma.) [This is incorrect ; rather, 
ally set up ludra as tlie oldest gram- in the passage in question, these 
marian connect themselves with tliis words follow tlie word Uidshya ; see 
passage.] ^ the noto on this point at p. 56.] In 

t Bkdshika svava in Kdtydyana, the same way, in the Nir. xiii. 9, 
Srauta-Sutra, i. 8, 17, is expressly mantra^ kalpUy brdhvianay and the 
interpreted as hrdhmana-svara ; see vydvahdriki (sc. bhdshd) are op[>o3ed 
Vdj. Saiph. Speciinen, ii. 196. 197. to eacli otlier (and also Rik, Yajus^ 
[/. X, 428-429, 437-] Yaska Saman^ ixwd i[\o vydvalidrikV\. 
repeatedly opposes bhdMydm and ^ Ought the i>assage cited in Nir. 
anveuikydyam (i.e., ‘in the Veda xiii. 9 from a Brahmana [cf. Kath. 
reading,’ ‘ in the text of the hymns ;) xiv. 5], to the effect that the Hrah- 
to each other ; similarly, the Prdti- mans spoke botii tongues, that of 
fclkhya - Sdtras employ the words the gods as well its that of men, to 
bhdAhd and bhdshyd as opposed to be taken in this connection ? or h:is 
cklidmidS and vcddj t.e. , SdTphitd (see tliis reference merely to a conception 
above, pp. 57, 103, 144). The way in resembling the Homeric onef 



ment between the two growing more and more marked, as 
the popular dialect in its turn underwent further develop- 
ment. This took place mainly under the influence of 
those aboriginal inhabitants who had been received into 
the Brahmanic community ; who, it is true, little by little 
exchanged their own language for that of their conquerors, 
but not without importing into the latter a large number 
of new words and of ])honetic changes, and, in particular, 
very materially modifying the I'ronunciation. This last 
was all the more necessary, as the numerous accumulations 
of consonants in the Aryan hhdshd presented exceeding 

difificulties to the natives; and it was all the easier, as 
there had evidently prevailed within the language itself 
from an early period a tendency to clear away these trouble- 
some encumbrances of speech, 
deed, the study of grammar in 

which, in 



V ^ ^ 

case continued to spread amongst the people at large. 
'I'his tendency was naturally furthered by the native inhabi- 
tants, particularly as they acquired the language not from 
those who were conversant with grammar, but from inter- 
course and association with the general body of the people. 
In this way there gradually arose now vernaculais, proceed- 
ing directly from the common hhdshd,* and distinguished 
from it mainly by the assimilation of consonants, and by 

* And tborefore specially so called 
down even to modern times ; where- 
as the grammatically refined hhdshd 
afterwards lost this title, and sub- 
stituted for it the name Sa/rj[i 8 lcf%ta~ 
hhdshd^ ‘the cultivated speech,* 
The name Prdkrita-hhdsJtdy which 
was at the same time applied to the 
popular dialects, is derived from the 
word }yi'alcrUi^ ‘nature/ ‘origin,’ 
and probably describes these as the 
‘natural/ ‘original* continuations 
of the ancient hhdshd: or does prd^ 
kfita here signify ‘ having a praJcrili 
or origin/ r.c., ‘<lcrived'? [Out of 
the signification ‘original/ ‘lying at 
the root of ’ {i/rakrUi-hhuta\ * uii- 
niodified,* arose that of ‘normal/ 
then that of ‘ ordinary,' ‘ community 
‘ VulyariSf and lastly, that of ‘ pro- 

ceeding in common from.* The term 
directly o]>posed to it is not sam~ 
skfUa, but vaikfita ; see, Ath, 
Parii 5 . 49. 1, “ rcwtidw pu)'va 7 yi vydkhyd- 
sydmah prdkritd ye cha vaikpitdh.*'^ 
The earliest instances as yet known 
of the name Sarnskfit as a designa- 
tion of the language occur in the 

Mpchhakati (p. 44. 2, ed. Stenaler), 
and iii ViUiih.i-Mihira’s Brihat-Sanx- 
hitii, 85. 3. Tlie following passages 
also of the Rilindyana are doubtless 
to be understood in tiiis sense, viz., 
V. 18. 19. 29. 17, 34 (82. 3), vi. 104. 
2. Tunini is fumilinr with the word 
Sawslriiay hut does not use it iu 
ibis sense ; though the rilniuiyd- 
Sik.vhd does so employ it (v. 3), in 
contradistinction to prdkrlta. 



the curtailment or loss of terminations. Not unfrequently, 
however, they present older forms of tliese than are fouml 
in the written language, partly because the latter has rigo- 
rously eliminated all forms in any way irregular or obso- 
lete, but partly also, no doubt, from the circumstance that 
grammar was cultivated principally in the north or north- 
west of India, and consequently adapted itself specially to 
the usage there prevailing. And in some respects {e.g., in 
the instr. plur. of words in a ?) this usage may have 
attained a more developed phase than appears to have 
been the case in India Proper,* since the language was not 
there hampered in its independent growth by any external 
influence ; whereas the Aryans who had passed into India 
maintaineil tluiir speech upon the same internal level 
on which it stood at the time of the immigration,*!* how- 

This example is not quite per- Abliidiiiinappadipikd (v. Childers, 
tineiit, as the instr. plur. in ‘dls is Pdli Diet) this identification may 
of very ancient date, l)eing reflecte<i perinips be correct; but the older 
not only in Zend, but also in Shi- Pdli texts, and even the inscriptions 
vonic and Lithuanian; see Bopp, of Piyadasi most distinctly the 
Vergl, Gram.y i, 156^ (iS 9 *)' facsimile of the Khdisi inscription 

* The difference in usage between in Cunningham’s 
the Eastern and Western forms of vey, i. 247, pi. xli., line 7), intro- 
speech is once touched upon in the duce the Kambojas in connection 
Brdhma^a of the White Yajus, with the Yavanas ; and this of itself 
where it is said that the Vdliikus determines that the two belonged 
style Agiii Bhava, wliile the Prdch- geographically to the same region 
yas, on the contrary, call him i^arra. in the norlh-west of India; see 
Ydska (ii. 2) opposes the Kambojas L Str,, ii. 321. In addition to 

(thePersa-Aryans?) totheAryas(the this we have the name Kabujiya = 

Indo-Aryans?),statingthat the latter, Kafi^ 86 <r 7 )s, and therewith all the 
for instance, possess derivatives only various references to this latter 

of the root iu, whereas the Kani- name, which point to a very wide 

bojas possess it also as a verb, ramification of it throuirhout Ii*dn ; 
(Grammarians of tlie Kambojas are see /. Str.y ii. 493. To Fartiier 
hiirdiy to be thought of here, as India the name Kumhoja evidontlv 
Roth, Zur Lit,j p. 67, supposes.) found its way only in later times, 
Ydska further opposes the Prdchyas like llie names Ayoilhyd, Indra- 
and the tJdichyas, and the same is prastha, Irdvati, Champd; though 
done by Pdnini, According to tlie it certainly remains strange that 
Brdhmana, the Udieliyas were most this lot should have fallen precisely 
conversant with grammar [see /. to it. Perhaps causes connected 

*• I 53 > 3 ^ 9 » 3 *o» 3ciii. 363, ff. with Buddhism mav liave liclped to 

Burneirs ideuLification of the Kam- bring this ahout. See on this point 
bojas here, and in tlie other earlier tlie Jenao* Lltcraturz^Uun^f^ ^875, 
passages where they are inentioiu-d, p. 418 ; hulkm Ant'nitxiry ,'\\\ 244.] 
with Cambodia in Farrlier India, see f Much as tiio Germans did, who 
\\\a Bfements of South Indian Paf(co- in tlie middle ages emigrated 
gi'aphy, pp. 31, 32, 94, is clearly a Transylvania, 
mistake. For the time of the Pdli 



evpr considerable were the external modifications wliich it 

The second period of Indian literature, then, coiniiieuces 
with tlie epoch when the separation of the lani^uage of 
the educated classes— 

of the written language 

from the 

popular dialects was an accomplished fact. It is in the 
former alone that the literature is presented to us. Not 
till after the lapse of time did the vernaculars also in their 
turn produce literatures of their own, — in the first instance 
under the influence of the Buddhist religion, which ad- 
dressed itself to the people as such, and whose scriptures 
and records, therefore, were originally, as for the most part 
they still are, composed in the popular idiom. The epoch 
in question cannot at present be precisely determined ; 
yet we may with reasonable certainty infer the existence 
of the written language also, at a time when we are in a 
position to point to the existence of popular dialects ; and 
with respect to these we possess historical evidence of a 
rare order, in those rock-inscriptions, of identical purport, 
which have been discovered at Girnar in the Gujarat 
peninsula, at Dhauli in Orissa, and at Kapur di Giri^^® in 
Kabul. J. Prinsep, who was the first to decipher them, and 
Lassen, refer them to the time of the Buddhist king A^oka, 
who reigned from b.c. 259 ; hut, according to the most 
recent investigations on the subject — by Wilson, in the 
“Journal of the Eoyal Asiatic Society,” xii., 1850 (p. 95 of 
the separate impression) — they were engraved “ at some 
period subsequent to B.C. 205,” * and are are still, there- 
fore, of uncertain date. However this question may bo 
settled, it in any case results with tolerable certainty 

This name oui^ht probably to 
be written Kapardvjiril See my 
paper on the Satruinjaya Mdhdtmyu, 
p. 1 18. In iliese inscriptions, more- 
over, we have a (ext, similar in pur- 
port, presented to us in three distinct 
diaiecis. See furtlier on this subject 
Burnout's admirable discussion of 
these inscriptions in liis Lotus de (a 
bonue Loi, p. 652, ff. (1852) ; /. St.^ 
iii, 467, t)\ {1855) ; and Kern, De Qe~ 
denkHul’hen van A^oka den Buddhist 
(1873, particularly p. 32 U'., 45 ff.). 

* And that not much later; as is 
vouched for hy the names of the 
Greek kings therein mentioned — 
Alexander, Antigonus, Magas, Pto- 
lemy, Antiochus. These cannot, it 
is true, be regarded as contempora- 
neous with the inscriptions ; but 
their notoriety in India can hardly 
have been of such lor g duration 
that the inscriptions can have been 
composed long after their time. See 
Wilson, 1 . c. 



that these popular dialects were in existence in the third 
century b.c. But this is hy no nutans to be set down as 
the limit for the connnencement of their growth ; on the 
contrary, the form in whicli tliey are presented to us sufli- 
ciently shows that a very considerable period must have 
elapsed since their separation from the ancient hhdshd. 
Tliis separation must therefore have taken place compara- 
tively early, and indeed we find allusions to these vernacu- 
lars here and there in the Brahmanas themselves* 

The direct data, attesting the posteriority of the second 
period of Indian literature, consist in these facts : fimt, 
that its opening phases everywhere presuppose the Vedic 
period as entirely closed; next, tliat its oldest portions are 
regularly based ny)on the Vedic literature ; and, lastly, tliat 
the relations of life have now all arrived at a stage of de- 
velopment of which, in the first period, we can only trace 
the germs and beginning. Thus, in particular, divine wor- 
ship is now centred on a tria(l of divinities. Brahman, 
Vishnu, and ^iva; the two latter of whom, again, in course 
of time, have the supremacy severally allotted to them, 
under various forms, according to the different sects that 
grew up for this purpose. It is by no means implied that 
individual portions of the earlier period may not run on 
into the later ; on the contrary, I have frequently endea- 
voured in the preceding pages to show that such is the 
case. For the rest, the connection between the two periods 
js, on the whole, somewhat loose : it is closest as regards 
those branches of literature which had already attained a 
definite stage of progress in the first ])eriod, and which 
merely continued to develop further in the second, — 
Grammar, namely, and Philosophy. In regard to those 
branches, on the contrary, which are a more independent 

* Thus in tl»e socdiul of the 

Aitareya-Braliinana the Syilparnas, a 

clan (?) of the western Salvas, are 

mentioned as ^^pritdyai vdehovadi- 

tdrah,"' ‘speaking a filthy tongut: 

and in the Paftcbavinia-Brdhmana, 

# # 

the Vr^tyas are found fault with 
for their debased language. Tlie 
Asiiras are similarly censured iu the 
6atapatha*Brdhiu;ina (iii. 2. I. 24), 
where, at the same time, the Brah- 

mans are warned against such forms 
of speech ; “ tasmdd hrdhmano na 
mleclihet ,^* — I may remark here in 
passing that M. Muller, in his edi- 
tion of the Rik, in Sdyana’a intro- 
duction, p. 36. 21, erroneously 

writes hdayo as one word: it stands 
for he Ha*iOy — theAsura corrn[)tion 
of the battle-cry he ^rayo (arayo) : 
according to the ^atapatha-Brdh- 
mapa, it even took the form he ^lavo. 



growth of the second period, the difficulty of connecting 
tliem with the earlier age is very great. We have here a 
distinct gap which it is altogether impossible to fill up. 
The reason of tliis lies simply in the fact, that owing to 
the difficulty of preserving literary works, the fortunate 
successor almost always wholly supplanted the predecessor 
it surpassed : the latter thus iHicame superlluous, and was 
consequently put aside, no longer committed to memory, 
no longer copied. In all these branches therefore — unless 
some other induence has supervened — we are in possession 
only of those master-works in which each attained its cul- 
minating point, and which in later times served as the 
classical models upon which the modern literature was 
formed, itself more or less destitute of native productive 
energy. This fact has been already adduced as having 
proved equally fatal in the case of the more ancient Brah- 
mana literature, &c. ; there, much to the same extent as 
here, it exercised its lamentable, though natural influence. 
In the Vedic literature also, that is to say, in its Sakhds, 
we find the best analogy for another kindred point, namely, 
that some of the principal works of this period are extant 
in several — generallv two — recensions. Jhit along with 

o ^ ^ 

this a further circuntstance has to be noted, which, in con- 
sequence of the great care expended upon the sacred lite- 
rature, has comparatively slight api)lication to it, namely, 
that the mutual relation of the manuscripts is of itself such 
as to render any certain restoration of an original text for 
the part hopeless. It is only in cases where ancient 
commentaries exist that the text is in some degree certain, 
for the time at least to which these commentaries belong. 
This is evidently owing to the fact that these works were 
originally preserved by oral tradition ; their consignment 
to writing only took place later, and po.ssibly in dilferent 
localities at the same time, so that discrepancies of all sorts 
were inevitable. But besides these variations there are 
many alterations and additions which are obviously of a 
wholly arbitrary nature, partly made intentionally, and 
partly due to the mistakes of transcribers. In refereiijce to 
tliis latter point, in particular, the fact must not be lost 
sight of that, in consequence of the destructive inllu- 
ence of the climate, copies had to be renewed very fre- 
quently. As a rule, the more ancient Indian manuscripts 



are only from three to four lumdred years old ; hardly any 
will he found to date more than five hundred years hackd®®* 
Little or nothing, therefore, can here be effected by means 
of so-called diplomatic criticism. We cannot even depend 
upon a text as it appears in quotations, such quotations 
being generally made from memory, — a practice which, of 
course, unavoidably entails mistakes and alterations. 

The distinction in point of subject-matter between the 
first and seOond periods consists mainly in the circum- 
stance that in the former the various subjects are only 
handled in their details, and almost solely in their relation 
to the sacrifice, whereas in the latter they are discussed in 
their general relations. In short, it is not so much a prac- 
tical, as rather a scientific, a poetical, and artistic want that 
is here satisfied. Tlic dilleronce in the form under which 
the two periods present themselves is in keejung with this. 
In the former, a sinqilc and cmnpact prose had gradually 
been developed, but in tbe latter this form is abandoned, 
Jind a rhythmic one adopted in its stead, which is employed 
exclusively, even for strictly scientific exposition. The 
only exception to this occurs in the grammatical and phi- 
losophical Sutras ; and these again are characterised by a 
form of expression so condensed and technical that it can- 
not fittingly be termed prose. Apart from this, we have 
only fragments of prose, occurring in stories which are now 
and then found cited in the great epic ; and further, in the 
fable literature and in the drama; but they are uniformly 
interwoven with rhythmical portions. It is only in the 
Buddhist legends that a ])rose style has been retained, the 

lu'garding the age, inaiiiicr 
of jneparatioii, material, and condi- 
tioti (if text, of liidiaii see Kaj, 

Lala Mitra’w oxci'lient report, da^od 

15th Feiirnaiy 1S75, 0:1 tin? h:<tarclo-s 

irtstitnted by him in native liV'iarie-s 
down to the end ttf the previous 
year, which is appended to No. IX. 
of his 0/ Smxxkrii 

Quite recently some Dcvandgarl 
MSS. of Jaina texts, written on 
broad palm-leaves, have been dis 
covered by Biihler, which date two 
centuries carder than any previdiisly 
known. A facsimile of one of these 

MSS. in lUihler^s posse.ssion, the 
Avaj^yaka-Sutra, dated Samvai ii8g 
(a 1). 1 132), is annexed to the above- 
men i(med report ; “ it is the oldest 
Sanskrit MS. that has come to no- 
tice,'^ Jhij. L. Mifra, Notices^ iii. 68 
(1874). But a letter from Dr. Rost 
(19th October 18751 intimates that 
in one of tlie Sanskrit MSS. that 
have lately arrived in Cambridge 
from Ne]xil, he has read the date 
128 of the Nepal era, t.c., a.d. 1008. 
Further confirmation of iliis, of 
course, still remains to be given. 



language of which, however, is a very peculiar one, and is, 
moreover, restricted to a definite field. In fact, as the re- 
sult of this neglect, prose-writing, was comyjletely arrested 
in the course of its development, and declined altogether. 
Anything more clumsy than the prose of the later Indian 
romances, and of the Indian commentaries, can hardly be ; 
and the same may be said of the prose of the inscriptions. 

This point must not be left out of view, wlien we now 
proceed to speak of a classification of the Sanskrit litera- 
ture into works of Poetry, works of Science and Art, and 
works relating to Law, Custom, and Worship. All alike 
appear in a poetic form, and by ‘ Poetry ’ accordingly in 
this classification we understand merely what is usually 
styled belles-lettres, though certainly with an important 
modification of this sense. For while, upon the one hand, 
the poetic form has been extended to all branches of the 
literature, upon the other, as a set-off to this, a good deal 
of practical prose has entered into the poetry itself, im- 
parting to it the character of poetry * with a purpose.’ Of 
the epic poetry this is especially true. 

It has long been customary to place the Epic Poetry at 
the head of Samskrit literature; and to this custom we 
here conform, although its existing monuments cannot 
justly pretend to pass as more ancient than, for example, 
Panini’s grammar, or the law-book which bears the name 
of Mnnu. We have to divide the epic poetry into two 
distinct groups : the Itihdsa- Purdnas and the Kdvyas. We 
have already more than once met with the name Itihasa- 
Purana in tlie later Brahmanas, namely, in the second part 
of th(‘ Salapatha-Brahmana, in the Taittirfya-Aranyaka, 
and in the Clihandogyopanishad. We have seen that the 
commentators uniformly understand these expressions to 
Jjtply to tlie legendary passages in the Brahmanas them- 
selves, and not to separate works ; and also that, from a 
passage in tlie thirteenth book of the Satapatha-Brahmana, 

it results with tolerable certaintv that distinct works of 


this description cannot then have existed, inasmuch as the 
division into which is usual in the extant writings 

of this class, is there expressly attributed to other works, 
and is not employed in reference to these Itih.'isa-l’uranas 
themselves. On the other hand, in the Sarpa-vidyii (‘ ser- 
pent-knowledge ’) and the Devajana-vidya (‘ genealogies of 



the gods ’) — to which, ia the passage in question, the dis* 
tribution into 2mrvans, that is to say, existence in a distinct 
form, is expressly assigned — we have in all probability to 
recognise mythological accounts, which from their nature 
might very well be regarded as precursors of the epic. 
We have likewise already specified as forerunners of tlie 
epic poetry, those myths and legends which are found in- 
terspersed throughout the Brahmanas, here and there, too, 
in rhytlimic form,* or which lived on elsewhere in the 

tradition regarding the origin of the songs of the Rik. 
Indeed, a few short prose legends of this sort have been 
actually preserved here and there in the epic itself. The 
Gathas also — stanzas in the Brahmanas, extolling indivi- 
dual deeds of prowess — liave already been cited in the like 
connection : they were sung to the accompaniment of the 
lute, and were com[)Osed in honour either of the prince of 
the day or of the pious kings of old (see I. St., i. 1 87). 
As regards the extant epic — the M aliA- Bhdrata — sjiecially, 
we have already pointed out the mention in thcTaiitin'ya- 
Aranyaka, of Vyasa Para^arya^^ and Vai^ampayana,^^'® 
who are given in the poem itself as its original authors; 
and we have also remarked (p. 143) that the family of the 

* As, for instance, the story of 
Harii^chandra in the second' part of 
the Aitareya-Brdhma^a. 

Vyifaa PdriWarya is likewise 
mentioned in the varda of the Sdina- 
vidlniua-Bnihmana, as the disciple of 
Vishvaksciia, and preceptor of Jai- 
mini; see L SL, iv. 377.— The Ma- 
hiibhdshya, again, not only contains 
frequent allusions to tlio legend of 
the Maliii- Bhdrata, and even metri- 
cal quotations that connect theiii- 
selves with it, but it also contains 

' r 

the name of Suka Vaiydsaki ; and 
from this it is clear that there was 
then already extant a poetical ver- 
sion of the Mahd-Bhdrata story ; see 
I, St.f xiii. 357. Among the prior 
births of Buddha is one (No. 436 
in WestergaanTs Catalo^us, p. 40), 
bearing tlic name Kanlia-Dipdyana, 
i. c . , Krislma-D vaipayaiia ! 

•j(K» Vaisatnpayana appears else- 
where frequently, but always in spe- 

cial relation to the transmission of 
the Yajur-Veda. By Pd^ini, it is 
true (iv, 3, 104), he is simply cited 
generally as a Vedic teacher, but the 
Malidbhd-shya, commenting on this 
passage, describes him as the teacher 
of Katha and Kaldpin. In the Cal- 
cutta Scholium, again, we find fur- 
ther particulars (from what source? 
cf, Tdi*dndtha on Siddh. Kaum , , i. 590), 
according to which (see /. St,, xiii, 
440) nine Vedic schools, and among 
them two belonging to the Sdma- 
Vecla, trace their origin to him. In 
the llig-Griltya he is evidently re- 
garded (see above, pp. 1:7, 58), after 
the manner of the Vislinu-Purdna, 
as the sp(*cial representative of the 
Yajur-Voda ; and so he appears in 
the Anukr. of the Atreyi school, at 
the head of its list {)f teachers, fir>e- 
daily as the preceptor of Ydska 



Pard^aras is represented witli especial frequency in the 
vanias of the White Yajus.* We also find repeated allu- 
sions in the Brahmanas to a Naimisln'ya sacrifice, and, ou 
the authority of the Maha-Bhdrata itself, it was at such a 
sacrifice that the second recitation of the epic took place in 
presence of a ^aunaka. But, as has likewise been remarked 
above [pp. 34, 45], these two sacrifices must l>c kept distinct, 
and indeed there is no mention in the Biiilunanas of a Sau- 
naka as participating in the former. Nay, several such sacri- 
iices may have taken place in the Naimisba forest [see p. 34]; 
or it is possible oven that the statement as to the recitation 
in question may have no more foundation than the desire 
to give a peculiar consecration to the work. For it is 
utterly absurd to suppose that Vydsa Pdra^arya and Vai- 
^ampdyana— teachers mentioned for the first time in the 
Taittin'ya-Aranyaka — could have been anterior to the sac- 
rifice referred to in the Brahmanas. The mention of the 
“Bharata” and of the “ Mahd-Bharata ” itself in the 
CJrihya-Sutras of A^valdyana [jind ^dilkhayana] we have 
characterised [p. 58] as an interpolation or else an indica- 
tion that these Sutras are of very late date. In IVinini 
the word “Maha-Bhdrata” does indeed occur; not, how- 
ever, as denoting the ei)ic of this name, but as an appel- 
lative to designate any individual of s]i(',( iat distinction 
among the Bharatas, like Mahd-Jdbala,“Huililiila (see J.SL, 
ii. 73). Still, we do find names mentioned in IVuiini whicli 
belong specially to the story of the Maha-P>hdrata— namely, 
Yudhishthira, Hastinapura, Vasudeva, Arjuna,-f- Andhaka- 
Vrishnayas, Drona (?) : so that the legend must in any case 
have been current in his day, possibly even in a poetical 
shape ; however surprising it may be that the name 
Panduj: is never mentioned by him. The earliest direct 

* This rojulers Lassen’s reference 
{I, AK,j i, 629) of tlie name IMnl- 
iarya, to the abtronomer or clirono- 
loger Parilsara, highly questionable. 

f A worshijiper of V;tsuileva, or 
of, Arjuna, is styled * Vdsinlevaka/ 
‘ Arjunaka.' Or is Arjuna l»crc still 
a name of Iiulra? [From the con- 
text lie is to be understood as a 
Kshatriya ; see on this, /. SL, xiii. 
349, ff. ; I)uL Aiitiq, iv. 246.] 
t This name only occurs in the 

^lahd'Blnlrata and in the works rest* 
ing upon it. Yet the Buddhi.sts 
mention a mountain tribe of Pdnda- 
vas, as alike the foes of the Siikyaa 
(i.c., the Kn^ilns) and of tlie in- 
habitants of Uijayinf; see Schief- 
Lcben (lt:s pp. 4, 40 

[in tlic latter passage tln^y appear to 
bo connected with Takshiusild?), and, 
further, Lassen, /. AK., ii. 100, IL ; 
Foucaux, Rof/a Cher Hoi Pa. pp, 
228, 229 (25, 26). 



evidence of the existence of an epic, with tlie contents ol 
the Maha-Bharata, comes to us from the rhetor Dion 
Chrysostom, who flourished in the second half of the first 
century A.D. ; and it appears fairly probable that the infor- 
mation in question was then quite new, and was derived 
from mariners who had penetrated as far as the extreme 
south of India, as I have pointed out in the Indische 
Slvdien,\x. 161-165.* Since Megasthenes says nothing of 
this epic, it is not an improbable hypothesis that its origin 
is to be placed in the interval between his time and that 
of Chrysostom; for what ignorant*|* sailors took note of 
would hardly have escaped his observation ; more espe- 
cially if what he narrates of Herakles and his daughter 
Pandaia has reference really to Krislina and his sister, the 
wife of Arjuna, if, that is to say, the IVindu legend was 
already actually current in his time. With respect to this 
latter legend, wliich forms the subject of the Maha-Bharata, 
we have already remarked, that although there occur, in 
the Yajus especially, various names and particulars having 
an intimate connection wdth it, vet on the other hand 
these are presented to us in essentially diflerent relations. 
Thus the Kuru-Panchalas in particular, whose internecine 
feud is deemed by Lassen to be the leading and central 
feature of the Maha-Bharata, appear in the Yajus on the 
most friendly and peaceful footing: Arjuna again, the 
chief hero of the Pandus, is still, in the Viijasaneyi-Sam- 
lita and the Satapatha-Brahmana, a name of IndratJ and 
'astly, Jananiejaya Parikshita, who in the Malni-Bliilrata 
•'s the great-grandson of Arjuna, appears, in the last part 
of the Satapatha-Brahmana, to be still fre.'^h in* the me- 
mory of the people, with the rise and downfall of himself 
and his house. I have also already expressed the con- 
jecture that it is perhaps in the deeds and downfall of this 
Janamejaya that we have to look for the original plot 

* It is not, however, necessary to 
suppose, as I did, L c., that they 
brought this int<dligence from the 
south of India itself ; they might 
have i)icked it up at some other part 
of their voyage. 

f That they were so appears fr6in 
their shitcmcnt as to the Great Bear, 

L c. 

X In the thirteenth book of the 
Satapatha - Bnlhmana, Indra also 
b(*a*s the name Dliarma, wliicli in 
t\v‘ Midia-Bharati is especially as- 
sociated with Vudhishtliira Iiim- 


self, thou^^h only in tlie forniii 
dha7'ma-7'(ija, dharma-jmtra, &c. 

The maha-bharaTa. 187 


of the stoiy of the Maha-Bharata ; * and, on the other 
hand, that, as in the epics of other nations, and notably 
in the Persian Epos, so too in the Maha-Bh«arata, the 
niytlis relating to tlie gods became linked with the popu- 
lar legend. But so completely have the two been inter- 
woven that the unravelling of the respective elements 
must ever remain an impossibility. One thing, however, 
is clearly discernible in tire Maha-Bharata, that it has as 
its basis a war waged on the soil of Hindustan between 
Aryan tribes, and therefore belonging probably to a time 
when their settlement in India, and the subjugation and 
brahmanisation of the native inhabitants, had already been 
accomplished. But what it was that gave rise to the con- 
flict — whether disputes as to territory, or it may be reli- 
gious dissensions — cannot now be determined. — Of the 
Maha-Bharata in its extant form, only about one-fourth 
(some 20,000 ilohis or so) relates to this conflict and the 
myths that have been associated with it;^^ while the 
elements composing the remaining three-fourths do not 
belong to it at all, and have only the loosest possible con-- 
nection therewith, as well as with each other. These later 
additions are of two kinds. Some are of an epic character, 
and are due to the endeavour to unite here, as in a single 
focus, all the ancient legends it was possible to muster, — 
and amongst them, as a matter of fact, arc not a few tliat 
are tolerably antique even in respect of form. Others are 
of purely didactic import, and have been inserted with 
the view of imparting to the military caste, for which the 
work was mainly intended, all possible instruction as to 
its duties, and especially as to the reverence due to the 
priesthood. Even at the portion which is recognisable as 
the original basis — that relating to the war — many genera- 
tions must have laboured before the text attained to an 
approximately settled shape. It is noteworthy that it is 
precisely in this part that repeated allusion is made to the 
Yavanas, Sakas, Pahlavas,^®^* and other peoples ; and that 

* Wliicli of coui-se standd in glar- to the work (i. 8l) the express iiiti- 
ing contradiction to the statement mation is still preserved that it 
that the Mahil-Blidrata was recited previously consisted of 8800 ilokat 
in his presence. only. 

And even of^ this, two-thirds In connection with the word 

will have to be sifted out as not Pahlava, Th. Noldeke, in a com* 
oriciual, since in the introduction munication dated 3d November 



these, moreover, appear as taking an actual part in the 
conflict — a circumstance which necessarily presupposes 
that at the time when these passages wereVritten, colli- 
sions with the Greeks, &c., had already liappened.^ But 
as to the period when the final redaction of the entire 
work in its present shape took place, no approach even to 
a direct conjecture is in the meantime possible; but at 
any rate, it must have been some centuries alter the com- 
mencement of our era.* An interesting discovery has 

1875. mentions a point which, if and as the old friend of Yudhi- 
confirmed, will prove of the highest sh^hira's father ; see /. St.y v. 152. — 
importance for determining the date In the name of the Yavana prince 
of composition of the Mahd-Bhdrata Kaserumant, we appear to have a 
and of the Kilmjlyana (see my Hssay reflex of the title of the Koinau 
on it, i)p. 22, 25), as well as of Mann Caesars ; see /n<i. Skiz.^ pp. 88, 91 ; 
(see X. 44). According to this, there cf. L. Fcer on the Kesai^l^ndma- 
exists considerable doubt whether saffigj'dmak of the Avaddna Sataka 
the word Pahlav, which is the basis in the Stances de VAead. de$ Inscr, 

of Pahlava^ and which Olshansen (1871), »»p. 47 > 5 ^> 

(v. sup., p. 4, note) regards as having With regard to the existence, 

arisen out of the name of the Par- so early as the time of the Mahdbbd- 
ihavas^ Partliiana, can have origi- shya, of a poetical version of tho 
uated earlier than the first century Mahd-Bhdrata legend, see /. St,^ 
A.D, This weakening of th to h is xui. 356 ff. “Still this does not 
not found, in the case of the word in the smallest degree prove tho 
Mithray for example,, before the existence of the work in a form 
commencement of our era (in the at all resembling the shape in which 
Ml IPO on the coins of the Indo- we now have it; and as the final 
Scythians, Lassen, /. AX'., ii. 837, result, we do not advance materially 
and in Meherdate$ in Tacitus). As beyond the passage in Dion Chry- 
the name of a people, the word sostom (/. St.^ ii. 161 ff.), relating 
Pahlav became early foreign to the to the ‘ Indian IJomer.’ For the 
Pt'psians, learned reminiscences ex- statements of the Greek writer 
cepted : in the Pahlavi texts them- themselves evidently date from an 
selves, for instance, it does not earlier time ; and although not 
occur. The period when it passctl necessarily derived, as Lassen sup- 
overto the Indians, therefore, would poses, from Megasthenes himself, yet 
have to be fixed for about tho 2d- they at any rate take us back to a 
4th century a.d. ; and we should period pretty nearly coincident with 
liavetf) understand byit, notdirectly that of tho Bhdshya,” 
the PersiiiUH, who are called P.ira- * Wo have a most significant 
sikas, rather, but specially the Arsa- illustration of the gradual growth of 
cidan Parthians. the Malia-Bhiirata in an episode 

Of especial interest in this con- commented upon by Sairikara, which 
n<-(tMon is the statement in it 578, by the time of Nllakantha (i.c., in 
579, where the Yavana prince Blia- the course of 6 or 7 centiiries) had 
gaxl.itta (Apollodotua (?), according become expanded by a whole chapter 
to von Gutschm id's conjecture ; of 47 iilohts ; see my Catal, of thi 
after B.c. 160) appears as sove- Sanskrit MSS^ in ike Berlin Lib,^ 
reign of Maru (Marwai-) and Naraka, p. loS. 
as ruling. ‘Varuni like, the west, 



recently been made in the island of Bali, neai' Java, of the 
Kavi translation of several pm'xans of the Malia-Bharata, 
which in extent appear to vary considerably from their 
Indian form 2®* A special comparison of the two would 
not be without importance for the criticism of the Maha- 
Bharata. For the rest, in consequence of the utter medley 
it presents of passages of widely different dates, the work, 
in general, is only to be used with extreme caution. It 
has been published at Calcutta,^®^ together with the Ilaii- 
vanna, a poem which passes as a supplement to it.* — 
Kespecting the Jaimini-Bhdrata, which is ascribed, not to 
Vyasa and Vai^ampayana, but to Jaimini, we have as yet 
no very precise information: the one book of it with 
which I am acquainted is wholly different from the cor- 
responding book of the ordinary Maha-Bharata.*}* 

See the observations, following the 7th century ; see /. Str,y i. 380, 
R. Friederich’s account, in /, St.^ ii. A French translation by A. Langlois 
136 If, appeared in 1834.] 

1834-39111 fourvols,; recently t See my Catal. of the Sandcrit 
aUo at Bombay (1863) with the 1 / 55 . tn iat., pp, 1 1 i-i 18 : 

commentary of Nilakantha, Hip- according to Wilson (Mack* Coll.^ ii. 
polyte Fauche’s incomplete French I), this book would ap[>ear to be the 
translation (1863-72, ten vols.) can only one in existence; see also 
only pass for a translation in a very Weigle in Z. JJ* 1 /. ft, ii, 278. 
qualified sense ; see a-s to this 1 . 5 ^?'., [This book, the dhKimcdhikain /arra, 
ii. 410 flf. Indivi<lual portions of was printed at Bombay in 1863; ac- 
the work have been frequently cording to its concluding statements 
bandied : e.g.y Pavie has translated as they ap))car in this edition, 
nine pieces (Paris, 1844) and Foucaux Jaimini’s work embraced the entire 
eleven (Paris, 1862). Bopp, it is epos; but up to the present, apart 
well known, early made the finest from this 13th book, nothing further 
episodes accessible, beginning with is known of it; see as to this my 
the Nala (London, 1819), whereby paper in the c/cr^m. 

he at the same time laid the founda- Acad,, 1869, p. 10 fiF. A Kanfirese 
tionof Sanskrit philology in Europe, translation of this book is assigned 
For the criticism of the Mahd- to the beginning of the 13th century 
Blidrata, the ground was broken (ibid., pp. 13, 35) ; quite recently, 
and important results achieved by however, by Kittel, in his Preface 
Lassen in bis Induche Altcrthums- to Nagavanna's Prosody, pp. vi. 
kunde (vol. i. 1847). For the con- Ixxi., it has been relegated to the 
tents of the work, seo Monier Wil- midcUe of the i8th (') century, 
liams’s Indian Epic Poetry (1863), 'J'hcpeculiar colouringof theKriehna 
and /nd/an llVsdom (1875). sect, which pervades tlie whole book, 

* In Alblrunl*8 time, the nth is noteworthy ; Cliristian legendary 
century, it ))as8ed as a leading autho- matter and other Wi .stern influences 
l ity; seo Joum. Asiat,Aug. 1844, are unmistakably present; Monatsb,, 
I>. 130. [Subandliu, author of the /. c., p. 37 ff. A good part of the con- 
Vasavadattd, Lad it before him, in tents has been communicated by 



Side by side with the Itihasa we find the Purdna men* 
tioiied in the Brahmanas, as the designation of tliose 
cosmogonic inquiries which occur tliere so frequently, and 
wliich relate to the ‘ agra' or ‘beginning’ of things. 
When in course of time distinct works bearing this name 
arose, the signification of the term was extended ; and these 
works came to comprehend also the history of the created 
world, and of the families of its gods and heroes, as well 
as the doctrine of its various dissolutions and renovations 
in accordance with the theory of the mundane periods 
iyugas). As a rule, five such topics are given as forming 
their subject (see Lassen, I. AK., i. 479), whence the epi- 
thet Pancha-lalcshaim , which is cited in Amara’s lexicon 
as a synonym of Purana. These works have perished, and 
those that have come down to us iu their stead under the 
name of Puranas are the productions of a later time, and 
belong all of them to the last thousand years or so. They 
are written (cf. Lassen, 1 . c.) in the interests of, and for the 
purpose of recommending, the ^iva and Vishnu sects ; and 
not one of them corresponds exactly, a few correspond 
slightly, and others do not correspond at all, with the de- 
scription of the ancient Puranas preserved to us in the 
Scholiasts of Amara, and also here and there in the works 
themselves. “ For the old narratives, which are in part 
abridged, in part omitted altogether, have been substituted 
theological and philosophical doctrines, ritual and ascetic 
precepts, and especially legends recommending a ])articular 
divinity or certain shrines” (Lassen, I. AK., i. 481). Yet 
they have unquestionably preserved much of the matter 
of these older works ; and accordingly it is not uncommon 
to meet with lengthy passages, similarly worded, in several 
of them at the same time. Generally speaking, as regards 
the traditions of primitive times, they closely follow the 
Maha-Bharata as their authority; but they likewise ad- 
vert, though uniformly in a prophetic tone, to the historic 

Talboys Wheeler in his History of 
India^ vol. i. (1867), where, too, 
there is a general sketch of the 
contents of the Maha-Bharata it- 
self ; see /. Str.^ ii, 392. — It remains 
fmtlnu- to mention the re-cast of 
the Mahil-Bhdrata by the Jaina 
Amarachaudra, whichisextant under 

the title Bdtla'Bhdrataf — in 44 jwr- 
gas of 6550 anushtuhh verses, — 
and which appeared iu the Benares 
Pandit (1869 ff.), edited by Vechana 
Kaiinisastrin. This work belongs 
probably to the irth century, see 

Z. D, M. G.j xxvii. 170. 



lines of kings. Here, however, they come into the most 
violent conflict, not only with each other, but with chro- 
nology ill general, so that their historical value in this 
respect is extremely small. Their mimlxir is considerable, 
amounting to .eighteen, and is doubled if we reckon the 
so-called UpapurdiMS, in which the epic character has 
been thrust still more into the background, while the ritual 
element has come quite to the front. Up to this time only 
one single Purana, the Bluigavata-Purana, has been pub- 
lished — the greater part of it at least — edited [and trans- 
lated] by Burnouf : but of the others we have excellent 
notices in Wilson’s translation of the Vishnu- Purana.^® 
As the second group of Epic Poetry we designated the 
Kdvyas, wliich are ascribed to certain definite poets {kavis)\ 
whereas the Itihasas and Puranas are attributed to a my- 


tion) personified.* At the head of these poems stands the 


the teachers of the Taittirfya-Prati^akhya.f In respect of 
language, this work is closely related to the war-portion of 
the Maha-Bharata, although in individual cases, where the 
poet displays his full elegance, it bears plainly enough on 
its surface, in rhyme and metre, the traces of a later date. In 

As also in the separate analy- 
ses of various Puranas, now collected 
in vol. i. ol Wilson’s Essays on •S'a«- 
slcrit Literature (ed. Host, 1864). 
Al'ove all, wo havo here to inenti<ui, 
further, the niimite accounts given 
of the Purdnaa by Aufrecht in his 
Catal. Cod, Eansc. BibL Bodl.^ pp, 
7-87. The Vishnu- Parana has been 
recently publishe<l at Bombay, wuih 
tlie commentary of llatiiagarbha- 
bhatta (1867) ; Wilson’s translation 
of it hiis been republished, edited V)y 
Fitzedward Hall in five vols. (1864- 
1870), with material additions and 
corrections. There are now also 
Beveral editions of the Bhdyavata- 
Purdna ; amongst them, one with 
the comm, of Srldharasvdmin (Bom- 
bay, i860). The Mdrkandeya-Pa- 
rdna has been edited in the BihL 

a])]>earing in the same scries (begun 
1870; caps. 1-214 thus far). An 
impression of the Kalki-Purdna ap- 
peared at Calcutta in 1873; and 
lithographed editions of tlie Linga- 
Purdna ( 1858) and of portions of the 
Padmay SkandUy OarudUy Brahma* 

vaivartay and other Purdnas have ap- 
peared at Bombay ; see /. Str.y ii. 

245 if., 301 ff. 

* The words kaviy in the sense of 
‘ singer, poet,’ and kdvyay in that of 
* song, poem,’ are repeatedly used in 
the Veda, but without any technical 
application ; see Vdjas- Spec,y 

ii. 187 [Ira yi vai vidya kdvyam 
ckhandaSy Sat., viii. 5. 2. 4]. 

t Whether by this name we liave 
to understand the same person is of 
course not certain, but considering 
the ainirularitv of the name, it is at 

Indicahy K. M. Banerjea (1855 least not improbable. 
1862) ; and the Agni* Purdna ia now 



regard to contents, on tlie contrary, the ditt'erence between 
it and this portion of the Maha-Bharata is an important 
one. In the latter human interest everywhere preponder- 
ates, and a number of well-defined personages are intro- 
duced, to whom the possibility of historical existence 
cannot be denied, and who were only at a later stage asso- 
ciated with the myths about the gods. But in the Bama- 
yana we find ourselves from the very outset in the region 
of allegory ; and we only move upon historical ground in 
so far as the allegory is applied to an historical fact, 
namely, to the spread of Aryan civilisation towards the 
south, more especially to Ceylon. The cliaracters are not 
real historic figures, hut merely personifications of certain 
occurrences and situations. Si'ta, in the fiist place, whose 
abduction by a giant demon, and subsequent recovery by 
lier husband Eama, constitute the plot of the entire poem, 
is hut the field-furrow, to which we find divine honours 
})aid in the songs of the Rik, and still more in the Grihya 
ritual. She accordingly represents Aryan husbandry, 
which has to be protected by Rama — whom I regard as 
originally identical with Balarama “ halabhrit,” “ the 
plough-bearer,” though the two were afterwards separated 
— against the attacks of the predatory aborigines. These 
latter appear as demons and giants ; whereas those natives 
who were well disposed towards the Aryan civilisation are 
represented as monkeys, — a comparison which was doubt- 
less not exactly intended to be flattering, and which rests 
on the striking ugliness of the Indian aborigines as com- 
pared witli the Aryan race. Now this allegorical form of 
the Ramayana certainly indicates, a p'iori, that tliis poem 
is later than the war-part of the Maha-Bharata; and we 
might fairly assume, further, that the historical events 
upon which the two works are respectively based stand to 
each other in a similar relation. For the colonisation of 
Southern India could hardly begin until the settlement of 
Hindustan by the Aryans had been completed, and the feuds 
that arose there had been fought out. It is not, however, 
altogether necessary to suppose the latter ; and the warfare 
at least which forms the basis of the Malui-Bharata might 
have been waged concun’ently with expeditious of other 
Aryan tribes to the south. Whetlier it was really the Ko- 
i^al^, as whose cliief Rama appears in tlie Ramayana, who 



efTected the colonisation of the south,* as stated in the 
poem ; or whether the poet merely was a Ko^ala, who 
claimed this honour for his people and royal house, is a 
point upon which it is not yet possible to form a judg- 
ment. He actually represents Sita as the daughter of 
Janaka, king of the Videhas, a tribe contiguous to the 
Ko^alas, and renowned for his piety. The scanty know- 
ledge of South India displayed in the Eamayana has been 
urged as proving its antiquity } since in the Maha-Bharata 

as far more advanced in civilisa- 

this region appears 
tion, and as enjoying ample direct communication with 
the rest of India. But in this circumstance I can only see 
evidence of one of two things : either that the poet did not 
possess the best geographical knowledge; whereas many 
generations have worked at the Mahd-Bhdrata, and made 
it their aim to magnify the importance of the conflict 
by grouping round it as many elements as possible: or 
else — and this is the point I would particularly empha- 
sise — that the poet rightly apprehended and performed the 
task he had set himself, and so did not mix up later con- 
ditions, although familiar to him, with the earlier state of 

The whole plan of the Eamayana favours the 
assumption that we have here to do with the work, the 


poetical creation, of one man. 


the extent 

of the. work, which now numbers some 24,000 ilokas, this 
is saying a great deal ; and before ei)ic poetry could have 
attained to such a degree of perfection, it must already 
have passed through many phases of development.-f- Still, 

* It was by them also — by Bhaglra- 
tha, namely — that, according to the 
Rdra^yana, the mouths of the Gan- 
ges were discovered. Properly, they 
were the I^usteni rather than the 
Southern foreposts of the Aryans, 

+ Of these phases we have pro- 
bably traces in the granthah Siht~ 
krandiyah [to this Goldstucker in 
bis Pdniniy p. 28, takes exception, 
doubtless correctly ; see /. St.y v. 
27], Yamaaabhiyahy Indrajananiyahy 
mentioned by Pdnini, iv. 3, 88 ; and 
in the Akhydnas and ChdnardtaSy 
which, according to PdninijVi. 2. 103, 
are to be variously designated ac- 
cording to the different points of the 

compass. The term Chdnai^t^ still 
remains unintelligible to me ; see 
L Sty i. 153. (For the rest, as 
stated by the Calcutta scholiast, 
this rule, vi. 2. 103, is not interpreted 
in the Bhdshya of Pataipjali ; it 
may possibly therefore not be Pji- 
^ini’s at all, but posterior to the time 
of Pataipjali.) — 'I’he word grantka 
may have reference cither to the 
outward fastening (like the German 

Hefty Band) or to the inner compo- 
sition : which of the two we have 
to suppose remains still undecided, 
but I am inclined to pronounce foi 
the former. [See above pp. 15, 99, 




it is by no means implied that the poem was of these 
dimensions from the first : here, too, many parts are cer- 
tainly later additions ; for example, all tliose portions in 
which Eama is represented as an incarnation of Vishnu, 
all the episodes in the first bbok, the whole of the seventh 
book, &c. The poem was originally handed down orally, 
and was not fixed in writing until afterwards, precisely 
like the Maha-Bharata. But here we encounter the further 
peculiar circumstance— which has not yet been shown to 
apply, in the same way at all events, to the latter work — 
namely, that the text has come down to us in several 
distinct recensions, which, while they agree for the most 
part as to contents, yet either follow a different arrange- 
ment, or else vary throughout, and often materially, in the 
expression. This is liardly to be explained save on the 
theory that this fixing of the text in writing took place 
independently in different localities. We possess a com- 
plete edition" of the text by G. Gorresio, containing the 
so-called Bengali recension, and also two earlier editions 
which break off with the second book, the one published 
at Serampore by Carey and Marshrnan, the other at Bonn 
by A. W. von Schlegel. The manuscripts of the Berlin 
library contain, it would seem, a fourth recension.* 

* See my Catalogue of these MSS., in its earliest shape in Buddhist 
p. 1 19. [Two complete editions of legends, underwent in the hands of 
the text, with lldma’s Commentary, Vdlmiki, rest upon an acquaintance 
have since appeared in India, the with the conceptions of the Trojan 
one at Calcutta in 1859-60, the cycle of legend; and I have like- 
other at Bombay iu 1859; respecting wise endeavoured to determine more 
the latter, see my notice in /. accurately the position of the work 

ii. 235-245. Gorresio’s edition was in literary lii>tory. The conclusion 
completed by the ai)pt*:ir;Lnce in 1867 there arrived at is, that the date 
of tlie text, and In 1870 of the trans- of its coiiqxK^tion is to be placed 
lation, of the Uttar a-lcdmja. Hip- towards the commencement of the 
polyte Fauche’s h'rench translation Christian era, and at all events in 
follows Gorn'sio’s text, whereas an epoch when the operation of 
Griffith's metrical English version Greek influence upon India had 
(Benares, 1870 74, in 5 vols.) fol- already s-t in. This elicited a re- 
lows the Bombay edjtion. In my joinder from Kaslunath 'JVimbak 

U(^hcr das Rdindyanam, 1870 Telang (1873), outiMed, Was the 
(an English translation of which ap- Rdmdyana cojned from llomf r; as 
poared iu the Indian Antiquary for to which see Ind, Ant., ii. 209, /. 
1872, also separaiely at Bombay in *SV., xiii, 336, 480. I'lie same writer 
1S73), I have attempted to show afti-rwards, in the Jnd. Ant., iii. 
that the modifications which the 124, 267, pointed out a half ilolca 
story of Rdma, as known to us which occurs in the Yuddha-Mnda^ 



Between the Ramdyana and the remaining Kavyas there 
exists a gap similar to that between ,the Maha-Bharata 
and the extant Puranas. Towards filling up this blank 
we might perhaps employ th^ titles of the Kavyas found in 
the Kavi language in the island of Bali, 2®* most of which 
certainly come from Sanskrit originals. In any case, the 
emigration of Hindds to Java, whence they subsequently 
passed over to Bali, must have taken place at a time when 
the Kavya literatm'e was ])articularly fiouiishing; other- 
wise we could not well explain the peculiar use they have 
made of the terms ham and Icdvya. Of the surviving 
Kavyas, the most independent in character, and on that 
account ranking next to the Eamayana — passably pure, 
too, in respect of form — are two works * bearing the name 
of Kalidasa, namely, the Itaghu-vaiiAa and the Kumdra- 
samhham (both extant in Kavi also). The other Kdvyas, 
on the contrary, uniformly follow, as regards their subject, 
the Maha-Bharata or the Edmayana; and they are also 
plainly enough distinguished from the two just mentioned 
by their language and form of exposition. This latter 
abandons more and more the epic domain and passes into 
the erotic, lyrical, or didactic-descriptive field ; while the 
language is more and more overlaid with turgid bombast, 

and also twice in PaUtpjali^s Malui- * They have been edited by 
bb^sbya. But the verse contains a Stenzler, text with translation [and 
mere general reflection {eti jirantam repeatedly in India since, with or 
dnando nara^rp, %vir$hasatdd ajd)j Bx\d ^yithout the commentary of Alaili- 
need not therefore have leen de- niltba. To the seven books of the 
rived from the Rdmdya^a. In it- Kumdra-saipbbava, which were the 
self, consequently, it proves nothing only ones previously known, ten 
aa to the priority of the poem to othera have recently been added ; 
Pataipjali, and this all the less, as it on the critical questions connected 
isexpresslycitedbyVdlmiki himself with these, see, c.fif., Z, D. M, 6'., 
merely as a quotation. On this and xxvii, 174-182 (1873), From the 
Bome other kindred points see my astrological data contained in both 
letter in the Ind. AriL, iv, 247 ff. works, H. Jacobi has sh<*wn, in the 
(1875).] Monatshtr, der Bct'L Acad,^ ^873, p. 

^ See Friederich, Z. c,, I, St, ii. 556, that the date of their com- 
I39ff. The mimeious traces which position cain^ot^ bje placed earlier 
are contained in Patariijali’s Mahu- than about thetfftiddle of the 4th 
bhjfshya of epic or narrative poems century-A-D. The Raghu-vansa was 
then actually extant, and which ap- most probaldy composed in honour 
pear in that work as direct quota- of a Phoja prince ; see my Essay on 
tions therefrom, take us back to a the Tdp. Uj)., p. 279, /, Str,^ 
far earlier time ; see L St^ xiii. i. 312]. 

463 fF. 



until at length, in its latest i)liases, this artificial epic re- 
solves itself into a wretched jingle of words. A pretended 
elegance of form, and the performance of difficult tricks 
and feats of expression, constitute the main aim of the 
poet; while the subject has become a purely subordinate 
consideration, and merely serves as the material which 
enables him to display his expertness in manipulating the 


Next to the epic, as the second phase in the develop- 
ment of Sanskrit poetry, comes the Drama. The name 
for it is NdtaJca, and the player is styled Nafa, literally 
‘ dancer.’ Etymology thus points us to the fact that the 
drama has developed out of dancing, which was probably 
accompanied, at first, with music and song only, but in 
course of time also with pantomimic representations, pro- 
cessions, and dialogue. We find dancing repeatedly men- 
tioned in the songs of the Rik {e.g., in i. 10. i, 92. 4, &c.), 
but with special frequency in the Atharva-Samhita and 
the Yajus,* though everywhere still under the root-form 

Six o£ these artificial epics Mahd-Bhdrata, and, like the Nalom 
are specially entitled Mahdkdvyas. daya, in 4 sar^aa, which is even 
These are, in addition to Wx^Raghu- ascribed to Kdliddsa (edited so long 
vaiUa and Kumdra^sarpihava : — ago as 1830 by Ferd. Benary), is 

(1) the Bhaffi-kdpya^ in 22 sargas, one of the most characteristically 
composed in Valabhi under king artificial pieces of this chiss of 
^ri-Dharasena (xxii, 35), in the 6th poetry. All these works have been 
or 7th cent, therefore ; it deals with frequently published in India, and 
the story of Rdina, and is written to them are to be added many 
with a special reference to grammar : other similar productions. — The 

(2) the Mdyha-kdvya or J§iiupdla- Prdkrit poem Setu-bandha or Rd- 

badha of Mi^ha, the son of Dattaka, vana‘hadhay which relates to the 
in 22 iargas (Suprabhadeva, grand- story of Hdma, and is reputed to 
father of the poet, is described as be by Kiiliditsa, also merits special 
the minister of a king Sri-Dharma- mention hero. Of this Paul Gold- 
ndbha), and (3) the Kirdtdrjuniya sclimidt has already published two 
of Bhdrnvijin 18 sargasy — both prior chapters (Gottingen, 1873); andSieg- 
to flaldyudha (end of the loth fried Goldschmidt is engaged on an 

cent.), see /. St., viii. 193, IQ 5 , edition of the entire text. 

196: (4) the Naiihadhiya of Sri- * With varionskindsof musical ac- 
Haisha, in 22 sargaSy of the 12th companiment, according to the Vdj. 
cent, (see BUhler \m the Journal Samh. xxx., where wo meet with 
Bombay Br. R. A, S., x. 35). The quite a number of musician.s and 
Rdghavapdndavlya of Kavirdja, tjuncers, as well as with the name 

in any case later than the loth Sailfisha itself, which, at a later 

cent, (.see I, St 7 \, i. 371), enjoys a time, at all events, belongs specially 
high esteem; it handles, in the to actors; see /, Str., i. 76, 83. 
eelf-same words, at once the story According to the scholium on Kdty., 
of the Rdmdya^a and that of the xxii. 4. 3, by those vrdtyaga^oiya 



tvrii. The prakritized form nat occurs for the first time 
in Panini, who, besides, informs us of the existence of dis- 
tinct Nata-siitras,* or manuals for the use of natas, one of 
which was attributed to ^ilalim and another to Krii^a^va, 
their adherents being styled Suilalinas and Kri^a^vinas 
respectively. The former of these names finds an ana- 
logue, at least, in the patronymic Sailali, whicli occurs in 
the thirteenth kd/ndxi of the ^atapatha- Brahman a ; and it 
may also, perhaps, be connected with tlie words Sailiisha 
and Ku^ilava, both of which denote ‘ actor ’ The 

latter name, on the contrary, is a very surprising one in 
this connection, being otherwise only known to us as the 
name of one of the old heroes who belong in common to 
the Hindds and the Parsfs.J Beyond this allusion we 
have no vestige of either of these works. Pdnini further 
cites § the word ndtyam in the sense of ‘ nafdndvi dharma 
dmndyo vd! In both cases, we have probably to under- 
stand by the term the art of dancing, and not dramatic 
art.— It has been uniformly held lutherto that the Indian 
drama arose, after the manner of our modern drama in the 
Middle Ages, out of religious solemnities and spectacles 
(so-called 'mysteries’), and also that dancing originally 
subserved religious purposes. But in support of this latter 
assumption, I have not met with one single instance in 
the ^rauta- or Grihya-SiUras with which I am acquainted 
(though of the latter, I confess, I have only a very super- 

yt sampddayeyuhf^ as tbe text has corrupt, loose morals of those so 
it, we have to uudorstand specially designated ; and tlie same must 
teachers of dancing, music, and apply to ^ildla, if this be a cog- 
singing. “ In the man who dances nate word. The derivation from 
and sings, women take delight,” Ku 4 a and Lava, the two sons of 
^at,, iii. 2. 4. 6, Rdma, at the beginning of the 

* The two rules in question, iv. Rdmdyana, has manifestly been in- 
3. no, III, according to the Cal- vented in order to escape the odium 
cutta scholiast, are not explained in of the name ^ku^iUava.^ 
the Bhdshya of Patamjali ; possibly, J Ought we here to undei'stand 
therefore, they may not be Pjinini’s the name literally, ns, perhaps, a 
at all, but posterior to the time of kind of moeking ej)ithet to express 
Pataiyyali. [The Saildlino natdh poverty, with at the same time, 
are mentioned in the Bhdshya to iv. possibly, a direct ironical reference 
2 . 66; in the Anupada-sdtra, the to the renowned Kfi&Wra of old ?? 
Saildlinah are cited as a ritual § iv. 3. 129: this rule, also, is not 
school ; see I. St.y xiii. 429.] explained in the Bbdsbya; perhaps 

+ These terms are probably de- therefore it is not Pd^ini’s, but 
rived from i/fa, and refer to the later than Pataipjali. 



ficial knowledge).^ Tlie religious significance of dancing 
is thus, for the older period at least, still questionable ; 
and since it is from dancing that the drama has evidently 
sprung, the original connection of the latter with religious 
solemnities and spectacles becomes doubtful also. Besides, 
there is the fact that it is precisely the most ancient dramas 
that draw their subjects from civil life; while the most 
modern, on the contrary, almost exclusively serve religious 
purposes. Thus the contrary, rather, would seem to be 
the case, namely, that the employment of dancing * and 
of the drama at religious solemnities was only the growth of 
a later age.^^® This does not imply, how'ever, that dancing 
was excluded from tliose great sacrificial festivals which 
were now and then celel>rated liy princes ; but only that 
it did not itself constitute part of the sacred rite or reli- 
gious ceremony, and could only, and did only, find a place in 
the intervals. The name applied to the stage-manager in 
the dramas themselves, ‘ Sutra-dhiira,’ is referred, and no 

Even now I am acquainted ^Kansavadhaixwd.Valibandhahyi^o^ 
with but little from these sources called — (comp, perhaps the 

bearing on this point. Amongst muhhikas in Hdrdvali^ 151, though 
other things, at the pitHmedha we these are explained as indrajdlihaSy 
find dancing, music, and song, ‘jugglers,* cf. so6//a, so6Aana^ar«i:a, 
which represent the three forms 7 , St.^ iii, 153) — lead us directly to 
of HLpa or art (^ilnkb, Br. 29. 5), this conclusion ; see I, SL^ xiii. 354, 
prescribed for the whole day, 487 £F. “ But between the dramatic 

Kdty., 21, 3. II. Bub a Sndtaka representations known in the Bhd- 
might not participate in any such shya, which bear more or less the 
performance, either actively or character of religious festival-phiys, 
passively, Pdr, ii, 7. On the clay and the earliest real dramas that 
preceding the departure of a bride, have actually come down to us, we 
four or eight married women (un- mur^t of course suppose a very con- 
widowed) performed a dance in her siderablo interval of time, during 
house, Siiukh. Gri. i. ii. which the drama gra<luallv rose to 

• It is known in the Megha-duta, the degree of perfection exhibited 
V- 3^» 3^* tho.-^o extant pieces ; and here 1 

!4i« q'iiroufrh the iniexpected light am still disposed to assign a certain 
shed by tlie Mahubhashya of Pataip- influence to the witnessing of Greek 
jali on the then flourishing condi- plays. 'I'he Indian drama, after 
lion of theatrical representation, liaving acquitted itself brilliantly in 
this question has recently taken a the most varied fields — notably too 
form very favourable to the view of as a drama of civil life — finally re- 
which Lassen is the principal ex- verted in its closing phases to essen- 
ponent, and which regards the tially the same class of subjects with 
drama as having originated in re- wbicli it had started — to representa* 
ligious spectacles resembling our tions from the story of the gods.”— - 
mysteries. The particulars there Ibid.^ 1>I>. 491, 492. 
given regarding the performance of 



doubt rightly, to the original sense of ‘ (measuring) line- 
holder,’ ‘carpenter;’* since it appears to have been one of 
the duties of the architect at these sacrificial celebrations, 
over and above the erection of the buildings for the recep- 
tion of those taking part in the sacrifice, likewise to con- 
duct the various arrangements that were to serve for their 
amusement. (See Lassen, I. AK., ii. 503-) Whether the 
natas and Tiartakas mentioned on such occasions are to be 
understood as dancers or actors, is at least doubtful ; but 
in the absence of anv distinct indication that the latter are 
intended, I hold in the meantime to the etymological sig- 
nification of the word ; and it is only where the two appear 
together (e.g.y in Rdmay. i. 12. 7 Gorr.) that nata has cer- 
tainly to be taken in the sense of ‘ actor.’ Buddliist legend 
seems, indeed, in one instance — in the story of the life of 
Maudgalyayana and TJpatishya, two disciples of Buddha — 
to refer to the representation of dramas in the presence of 
these individuals.'!* But here a question at once arises as 
to the age of the work in which this reference occurs ; this 
is the main point to be settled before we can base any 
conclusion upon it. Lassen, it is true, says that “ in the 
oldest Buddhistic writings the witnessing of plays is spoken 
of as something usual ; ” but the sole authority he adduces 
is the passage from the Dulva indicated in the note. The 
Dulva, however, that is, the Vinaya-Bitaka, cannot, as is 
well known, be classed amongst the “ oldest Buddhistic 
writings ; ” it contains pieces of widely different dates, in 
part, too, of extremely questionable antiquity. In the 
Lalita- Vistara, apropos of the testing of Buddha in the 

* And therefore has probaUly their mutual addresses after the 
nothing to do with t)»e N:ita-s{iti*as shows are over/' By ^spectacle’ 
mentioned above ! For unother ap- must we here necessarily understand 
plication of the wor<l by the Bud- ‘ dramatic spectacle, drama ' ? 1 
dhista, see Lassen, /. AK., ii. 8l. [Precisely the same thing applies to 
Of a marionette theatre, at all the word which properly 

events, we must not think, though only- signifies ‘merrymaking' in the 
the Javanese puppet-shows iniglit Sntia» of the Southern liuddhieta, 
tempt us Uy do so. where the witnessing of such ex- 

+ CsoTua Korosi, who give.s an hibitions (ris7?^a-c/rt5Srtna) is men- 
account of this in As. RfS, xx. 50, tioned among the reproaches direct- 
uses these phrases : “ Tliey meet on ed by Bhagavant against the worldly 
the occasion of a festival at Rdja- ways of the Brahmans; see Bur- 
griha : , . . their behaviour during nouf, Lotus de la Bonne Loi^ p. 465 ; 
the several exhibitions of spectacles — /. St,^ iii 152- 154.] 



various arts and sciences (Foucaux, p. 1 50), must, 

undoubtedly, be taken in the sense of ‘ mimetic art ’ — and 
so Foucaux translates it; but this does not suppose the 
existence of distinct dramas. The date, moreover, of this 
particular work is by no means to be regarded as settled ; 
and, in any case, for the time of Buddha himself, this 
examination-legend cames no weight whatever. . 

With respect, now, to the surviving dramas, it has 
hitherto been usual to follow what is supposed to be the 
tradition, and to assign the most ancient of them, the 
Mrichhakatf and Kalidasa’s pieces, to the first century b.c. ; 
while the pieces next following — those of Bhavabhiiti — 
belong to a time so late as the eighth century a.d. Be- 
tween Kdlidasa and Bhavabhiiti there would thus be a 
gap of some eight or nine centuries — a period from which, 
according to tliis view, not one single work of this class has 
come down to us. Now this is in itself in the highest 
degree improbable; and ivere it so, then surely at the very 
least there ought to be discernible in the dramas of the 
younger epoch a very difierent spirit, a very different man- 
ner of treatment, from that exhibited in theit predecessors 
of an age eight or nine hundred years earlier.* But this 
is by no means the case ; and thus we are compelled at 
once to reject this pretended tradition, and to refer those 
soi-disant older pieces to pretty much the same period as 
those of Bhavabhiiti. Moreover, when we come to examine 
the matter more closely, we find that, so far as Kalidasa 
is concerned, Indian tradition does not really furnish any 
ground whatever for the view hitherto accepted : we only 
find that the tradition has been radically misused. The 
tradition is to the effect that Kalidasa lived at the court 
of Vikramaditya, and it is contained in a memorial verse 
which says that Dhanvantari, Kshapanaka, Amarasihlia, 
Safiku, Vetalabhatta, Ghatakarpara, Kalidasa, Varahami- 
hira, and Vararuchif were the ‘nine gems’ of Vikrama’s 

* I have here copied Holtzmaim’s krama-charitra {Joimi. As!(tt. Mai, 
words, referring to Amara, in his 1844, p. 356). [This recension — 
excellent little treatise, Ueber den ascriljed to Vararnchi— of the SiA- 
(jriechischen Uraprung dca indischen hifsana-dv{itriA 4 ikd is actinally ex- 
Thierhreises, Karlsruhe, 1841, p. 26. tant ; see Aufrecht, Cat. of Satisk. 

t This is obviously the Vriracha MSS. Libr. Trin. Coll. Camb., p. ii, 
who is mentioned by the Hindustani and Westergaard, Catal. Codd. Or. 
chronicler as the author of the Vi- Bibl. Beg. Haunicnaia, p. 100.] 



court. Now it is upon this one verse — a mere waif and 
stray, that has come, like Schiller’s ‘ Madchen aus der 
r remde,’ from nobody knows where,* and whicli is, in any 
case, of the most questionable authority — that the assump- 
tion rests that Kalidasa flourished in the year 56 b.c. ! 
For people were not satisfied with hastily accepting as 
genuine coin the tradition here presented — and this not- 
withstanding the fact that they at the same time impugned 
to some extent the trustworthiness of the verse embody- 
ing it*f* — they at once rushed to the conclusion that the 
Vikrama here named must be the Vikramaditya, whose era., 
still current in our own day, commences with the year 56 
B.c. But then, we know of a good many different Vikramas 
and Vikramadityas : + and, besides, a tradition which is 
found in some modern works, § and which ought surely, in 
the first instance, to have been shown to be baseless before 
any such conclusion was adopted, states expressly (whether 
correctly or not is a question by itself) that king Bhoja, 
the ruler of Mdlava, who dwelt at Dhara and Ujjayinf, was 
the Vikrama at whose court the ‘nine gems’ flourished; 
and, according to an inscription,]! this king Bhoja lived 

* It is. alleged to be taken from lin*s !S<mskrit AniholontL pp. 48 s, 

theVikrama-charitra; butRoth, in 48^. 

his analysis of this work in theJowm. || See Lassen, Zdtzch. jur die 
AiiaL^ Octob. 1845, p. 278 fiF., says Kxinde des Morg.y vii, 294 fF. ; Cole- 
nothing of it. [And in fact it occurs brooke, ii. 462. According to Reiu- 
neither there nor in any of the other and in the Jonrn. Asiat., Sept. 1844, 
recensions of the Si&hdsai^a-dvdtriA- p. 250, Bhoja is mentioned s^nie 
to which I have access. It is, years earlier by Albirdni, who wrote 
however, found embodied both in in a.D. 1031, as his contemporary ; 
the Jyotirvid-^bharana, of about the and Otbi alludes to him earlier still, 
sixt^nth century (22, 10, see Z. D. in a.d. 1018, as then reigning; see 

• 723 > 1868), and in a Reinaud, Mim, eitr Vhidcy p. 261. 
Singhalese MS. of the so-called According to a later Hindustani 
Navaratna (with Singhalese com- chronicler, he lived 542 years after 
inenUry) cited in Westergaard's Vikramdditya (see Joimu AsiaL 
CataL Codd, Or. Bibl. Seg, J/aun,, Mai, 1844, p. 354), which would 

1^* ^4 make the dale of the latter about 

t Partly on erroneous grounds, a.d. 476. Upon what this very pre- 
It WM asserted, namely, that the cise statement rests is unfortunately 
word Gha^akarpara in the verse was uncertain ; the Vikrama-charitra 
only the name of a work, not of a does not fix in this definite way the 
person : this, however, is not the iiPcrval of time between Blioja and 
case, as several poems, besides, are Vikrama. Roth, at all events, in 
found ascribed to him. ^ ^ his analysis of the w'ork 

J Sun of might is quite a Asiat., Sept. 1854, p. 281) merely 

^ name. finys, “i/Vw drs anyi^cs apres {la mort 

8 See, for instance, also Haeber- dc VikTamadilya) Bhoja i^arvint aw 



about 1040-1090 A.D. On the other hand, there exists no 
positive gi'ound whatever for the opinion that the Vikrama 
of the verse is the Vikramaditya whose era begins in b.c. 
56. Nay, the case is stronger still ; for up to the present 
time we have absolutely no authentic evidence * to show 
whether the era of Vikramaditya dates from the year of 
his birth, from some achievement, or from the year of his 
death, or whether, in fine, it may not have been simply 
introduced by him for astronomical reasons ! “ To assign 

him to the &st year of his era might be quite as great a 
mistake as we should commit in placing Pope Gregory 
XIII. in the year one of the Gregorian Calendar, or even 
Julius Cajsar in tlie first year of the Julian period to which 
his name has been given, i.e., in the year 47 1 3 B.C.” (Holtz- 
mann, op. cit., p. 19). 

Muverain 'potivoir,'" [The text has 
simply : ^*'bahiji,ni varshdni gaidni'* 
Nor does any definite statement of 
the kind occur in any of the various 
other recensions of the Sinluisana- 
dv 4 triu 4 ikd, although a considerahle 
interval is hero regularly assumed 
to have elapsed between the rule of 
Vikrama at Avanti and that of Bhoja 
at Dhdrd.] — To suppose two Bhojas, 
as Reinaud does, L c., and 9ur 
VlndCy pp. 1 13, 1 14, is altogether 
arbitrary. We might determine the 
uncertain date of Vikramd<iitya by 
the certain date of Bhoja, but we 
cannot reverse the process. The date 
3044 of Yudiushtliira's era is, /. i'lj., 
I c., p. 357 . assigned to the acco.s- 
sion of Vikraindditya ; but it does 
not appear whether this is the actual 
tradition of the Hindustani chroni- 
cler, or merely an a*Idition on the 
part of the translator. Even in the 
former case, it would still only prove 
that the ciironiolt^r, <>r the tradition 
he followed, mixed up the common 
assertion as to the date of Vikrama 
with the special statement above 
referred to. [To the statements 
of the Hindustani chronicler, Mir 
Cher i Ali Afsos, no great impor- 

SiAhiisana-dviUrinsikd, w’nich, how- 
ever, in the MS. before mo (Trin. 
Coil., Camb.), yields no definite 
chronological data. — After all, 
the assumption of several Bhojas 
has since turned out to be fully 
warranted; see, «.y,, Rajendraldla 
Mitra in Journ, A, S. Beng, 1863, 
p. 91 ff., and my L Str.y i. 312.] 

* See Colebrooke, ii. 475 ; Lassen, 
7 . AK,y ii. 49, 50, 398; Reinaud, 
M6m, sur I'lndey pp, 68 ff, 79 ff. ; 
Bertrand in the Journ, Aaiat., Mai, 

1844, V - 357 - 

+ We first meet with it in the 
astronomer Vtaniha-Miliira in the 
fifth or sixth century, though even 
this is not ah ogether certain, and, as 
in tiic case of Brahmagupta in the 
seventli century, it might possibly 
be the era of f§aliviihana (beg. a.D. 
78). La.s.^eu doc.s, in fact, suppose 
tiie latter ( 7 . AK,, i, 508), but see 
Colebrooke, ii. 475. — Albiruni gives 
particulars (v. Uoiuaiul, 7 oMrn../lifmi., 
Sept. 1844, pp. 282-284) as to tlio 
origin of the 3aha era ; b*.it regard- 
ing the basis of the Samvat era of 
A’ikratna lie docs not enlarge. [Even 
yet these two questions, which are 
of such capital importance for Indian 

tance, probably, need be attached, chronology, are in an altogether 
Theyrestsubstantially on the recen- unsatisfactory state. According to 
sion attributed to Varuruchi of the Kern, Introd, to his edition of tho 


The dramas of Kalidasa — that one of the ‘nine gems’ with 
whom we are here more immediately concerned — furnish 
in their contents nothing that directly enables us to 
determine their date. Still, the mention of the Greek 
female slaves in attendance upon the king points at least 
to a time not especially early ; while the form in wliich 
the popular dialects appear, and which, as compared with 
that of the inscriptions of Piyadasi, is extraordinarily 
degraded, not tinfrequently coinciding with the present 
form of these vernaculars, brings us down to a period at 
any rate several centuries after Christ. But whether the 
tradition is right in placing Kalidasa at the court of Bhoja 
in the middle of the eleventh century appears to me very 
questionable ; for this reason in particular, that it assigns 
to the same court other poets also, whose works, compared 
with those of Kdlidasa, are so bad, that they absolutely 
must belong to a later stage than his — for example, 
Damodara Mi^ra, author of the Hanuman-nataka. More- 
over, Kalidasa has allotted to him such a large number of 
works, in part too of wholly diverse character, that we 
cannot but admit the existence of several authors of this 
name; and, in point of fact, it is a name that has continued 
in constant use down to the present time. Kay, one even 
of the three dramas that are ascribed to Kalidasa would 
seem, from its style, to belong to a different author from 

Bribat-Saqiliitd of Vardha-Mihira, taken the same view, /. 7 f. . 4 . S’., vii. 
5 ff. {1866), tlie use of the so-called 382 {1875). According to Eggeling 
Sarjivat era is not demonstrable for (Triibner’s Amer. and Or. Lit. Rec., 
early times at all, while astronomers special number, 1875, p. 38), one of 
only begin to employ it after tbe the inscriptions found in Sir Walter 
year 1000 or so. According to Elliot’s copies of grants dates as 
Westergaard, Om de indiske Kfyter- far back as the year i^aJea 169 (a.d. 
house (1867), p. 164, the grant of 247). Burnell, however, declares it 
Dantidurga, dated Saka 675, Samvat to be a forgery of the tenth century. 
81 1 (a.d. 754), is the earliest certain Fergusson, too. On the Saha, Sarp.- 
instance of its occurrence; see also vat, and Gupta Eras, pp. II-16, is 
Burnell, Elem. of South. Ind. Pal., p. of opinion that the so-called samvat 
55. Others, on the contrary, have era goes no farther back than the 
no hesitation in at once referring, tenth century. For the present, 
wherever possible, every Sarpvat- or tlierefore, unfortunately, where 
SaTpvcdsare-daied. inscription to the there is nothing else to guide us, it 
Sarpvai era. Thus, e.g.. Cunning- must generally rem.ain an open ques- 
ham in his Archaol. Survey of India, tion which era we have to do with 
iii. 31, 39, directly assigns an in- in a particular inscrij)tion, and what 
Bcriptioii dated Samv. 5 to the year date consequently the inscription 
B.C. 52 : Dowson, too, has recently bears.] 



the other two.^^^ And this view is further favoured by 
the circumstance, that in the introduction to this play 
Dhavaka, Saumilla, and Kaviputra are named as the 
poet’s predecessors ; Dhavaka being the name of a poet 
who flourished contemporaneously with king Sn'-IIarsha 
of Kashmir, that is, according to Wilson, towards the 
beginning of the twelfth century a.d There may, it is 

In the introduction to my 
translation of this drama, the Md- 
lavikignimitra, 1 have specially ex- 
amined not only the question of its 
genuineness, but also that of the 
date of Kdliddsa. The result ar- 
rived at is, in the first place, that 
this drama also really belongs to 
him, — and in this view Shankar 

in his edition of the play 
(Bombay, 1869), concurs. As to 
the second point, internal evidence, 
partly derived from the language, 
partly connected with the phase of 
civilisation presented to us, leads 
me to assign the composition of 
K^liddsa’s three dramas to a period 
from the second to tho fourth cen- 
tury of our era, the period of the 
Gupta princes, Chandragupta, &c., 
** whose reigns correspond best to 
the legendary tradition of the glory 
of Vikrama, and may perhaps be 
gathered up in it in one single focus,” 
Lassen has expressed himself to 
essentially the same effect (/. AK.^ 
ii. 457, 1158-1160) ; see also /. 8^^., 
ii. 148, 415-417* Kern, however, 

with special reference to the tradi- 
tion which regards Kdlid^sa and 
Vardha-Mihira as contemporaries, 
has, in his preface to Vardha’s 
Bfihat-Saqihitd, p. 20, declared 

himself in favour of referring the 
‘nine gems* to the first half of the 
sixth century a.d. Lastly, on the 
ground of the sistrological data in 
the Kumdra-saipbhava and Rnglm- 
van^a, Jacobi comes to tho con- 
clusion [M<mat%htr. der BcrL Acad,y 
1873, p. 55^) the author of 
these two poems cannot have lived 
before about a.d. 350 ; but here, of 
course, the preliminary question 
remains whether ho is to be identi- 

fied with the dramatist, bhankar 
Pa^i^it, in Triibner’s Am. and Or. 
Lit. Rec.i 1875, special No,, p. 35, 
assumes this, and fixes Kdliddsa's 
date as at all events prior to the 
middle of the eighth century. For 
a definite chronological detail which 
is perhaps furnished by the Meglia- 
dtita, see note 219 below. By 
the Southern Buddhists Kdliddsa 
is placed in the sixth century ; 
Knighton, Hut. of Ceylon^ 105 ; 
Z. D. M. Q.y xxii, 730. With modern 
astronomers, the idea of a triad of 
authors of this name is so fixed, 
that they even employ the term 
Kdliddsa to denote the number 3; 
see Z. D. M. O.y xxii. 713. 

The date of 6ri-Harsha, of 
whom Dhdvaka is stated iu the 
Kdvya-prakiKa to have been the 
protdgd— Kashmir is not here in 
question — has since been fixed by 
Hall (Introd. to the Vdsavadattd) 
for the seventh century, rather. 
Hail, moreover, questions the exis- 
tence of Dlidvaka altogether (p. 17), 
and is of opinion that he “never 
enj()yed any more substantial 
existence tlian that of a various 
reading." — This conjecture of Hall’s 
as to the name of the author of the 
Ratiidvali, in which Biihler also 
concurred, has since been brilliantly 
verifie<l. According to Biihler’s letter 
from ^rinagara (publ. iu I. xiv. 
402 ff.), all the Kaslunir MSS. of 
the Kdvya-prakd. 4 a read, in the pas- 
sage in question, Bdna^ not Dhd- 
vaka, tile latter name being alto- 
gether unknown to the 
there ; “ As Mamma^a was a native 
of Kashmir, this reading is un- 
doubtedly the cf)rrect one." — Comp, 
note 218 below. 



tme, Lave been more Dhavakas than one ; another MS,, 
moreover, reads Bliasaka ; and besides, these introduc- 
tions arc ])ossil)ly, in part, later additions. In the case of 
the Mrichhakati at least, this would appear to be cer- 
tain, as the poet’s own death is there intimated.* This 
last-mentioned drama, the Mrichhakati — whose author, 
^lidraka, is, according to Wilson, placed by tradition prior 
to Vikramaditya^^ {i.e., the same Vikrama at whose 
court the ‘ nine gems ’ flourished ?) — cannot in any case 
have been written before the second century a.d. For it 
makes use of the word ndnaJea as the name of a coin ; f 
and this term, according to Wilson (Ariana Antiqua, p. 
364), is borrowed from the coins of Kanerki, a king who, 
by the evidence of these coins, is proved to have reigned 
until about the year 40 a.d. (Lassen, I. AK., ii. 413). But 
a date long subsequent to this will have to be assigned to 

to the Mrichhakati, since the vernacular dialects it intro- 

• • * -- 

duces appear in a most barbarous condition. Besides, we 
meet with the very same flourishing state of Buddhism 
which is here revealed in one of the dramas of Bhava- 
bhdti, a poet whose date is fixed with tolerable certainty 
for the eighth century a.d. 'I'he Eamayana and the war- 
part of the Maha-Bharata luusts to judge from the use 

The passage exhibits a great whom Chdnakya is to destroy. To 
numberof various readings; see Haag, Vikramdditya, on the other hand, 
Z«r Texieski'Uik «, Erkldmng von is assigned the date 4000 t.c., 
Kdliddsa'sMdlavikdgn{mitra(i%'j 2 ), A.D. 899 (!) ; see the text in I6va- 
pp. 7, 8. Hall, 1 . c., prefers the rachandra Vidyiisiigara’s Manage 
readings and *VaM- of Hindoo ITn/oieit, p, 63 (Gale. 

7w?7a; Haag, on the contrary, 1856), and in my Kssay on the 

Eauniilln^ Kavipvlra, In Hana's Ranutyana, p. 43- 
Harsha- charita, Introd., v, 15, t According to the Visva-koshn, 
Bhdsa is lauded on account of his quoted by Maliidhara to Vilj. Samii, 
dramas ; indeed, his name is even 25. 9, it is a synonym of rupn 
put before that of Killiddsa, (= rupee ?). Ytljnavalkya (see 

* Unless Sddraka-rdja, the re- Stenzler, Introd., p. xi.) and V)*id- 
puted author, simply was the p.itron dha-Qautama (see Dattaka Mimiiiisd, 
of the poet? It is quite a common p. 34) are also acquainted with 
thing in India for the actual author ndnokci in the sense of ‘coin.' 
to Buhstituto the name of his patron [Both Lassen,/. 575* ^*^‘1 

for his own. Miiller, d. S. L., p. 331, dispute 

In a projilietic chapter of the the conclusions drawn from the 
Skanda-Purdna, for instance, he is occurrence of the word but 

placed in the year Kali 3290 (i.f., I cannot be persuaded of the cogency 
A.D. 189), but at the same time only of their objections.] 
twenty years before the Nandas 



made of their heroes in the Mriclihakati, already have 
been favourite reading at the time when it was composed ; 
while, on the other hand, from the absence of allusion 
to the chief figures of the present Puranas, we may 
perhaps infer with Wilson that these works were not yet 
in existence. This latter inference, however, is in so far 
doubtful- as the legends dealt with in these younger 
Puranas were probably, to a large extent, already contained 
in the older works of the same name.* Tine two remain- 
ing dramas of Bhavablniti, and the whole herd of the later 
dramatic literature, relate to the heroic tradition of the 
Eamayana and Maha-Bharata, or else to the history of 
Krishna ; and the later the pieces are, the more do they 
resemble the so-called ‘mysteries' of the Middle Ages. 
The coinedi('s, which, together with a few other pieces, 
move in the sphere of civil life, form of course an excep- 
tion to this. A peculiar class of dramas arc the philo- 
sophical ones, in which abstractions and systems appear as 
the dramatis j^crsonte. One very special peculiarity of the 
Hindii drama is that women, and persons of inferior rank, 
station, or caste, are introduced as speaking, not in Sanskrit, 
but in the popular dialects. This feature is of great 
importance for the criticism of the individual pieces; 
the conclusions resulting from it have already been ad- 
verted to in the course of the discussion. 

certainly to a later stage. Ought 
the Siniraka who is n)entione<l in 
this work, p. Ii8, cd. Wilson, to be 
identified, perhaps, with the reputed 
author of the Mrichhakn ti? 

215 cxauii)le, from the rela- 
tion in which the Pi-dkfit of the 
several existing recensions of the 
6akiuitalil stands to the rules of 
the I’rdkrit gramiiiarian Vararuchi, 
Pischel has drawn special nrgiimenta 
in support of the view advocated 'oy 
him in conjunction with Stcnzler, 
that of these recensions the Bengdll 
one is the most ancient; sec Kuhn’s 
Bciti'wjc znr vergL Sj)rachforsch,j 
viii. 129 fiP. (1S74), and my observa- 
tions on the subject in /. St.j siv. 


* Besides, the slaying of Kumbha 

and Ni^umbha bv Devi, whicli forms 

% / 

the subject of the I )evi-Mdhdtmya, 
v.-x., in the Mdrknnd.-Pmdna, is 

J • • ♦ ’ 

referred to in tlio Mriclihakati, p. 
105.22 (cd. Stcnzler). — Whether, 
104.18, Kitvftpika is to be referred 
to the jackal of this name in the 
Pafichatantrn. is uncertain. — At 
page 126.9 Steiiz'cr reads gallalka, 
but Wilson {Hindu ThcalrCj i, 134) 
reads mallal'a, and considers it iu)t 
impos.sible that by it we liave to 
understand the Arabic wdlxk! — In 
regard to the state of manners de- 
picted, tlie Mpichbakati is closely 
related to the Daisa - kumara, al- 
though the latter work, written in 
the eleventh century [ratlier in the 
sixth, see below, p. 213], belongs 


From the foregoing exposition it appears that tlie di'ania 
meets ns in an a&eady finished form, and with its best pro- 
ductions. In almost all the prologues, too, the several 
works are represented as new, in contradistinction to the 
pieces of former poets ; but of these pieces, that is, of the 
early beginnings of dramatic poetry, not the smallest rem- 
nant has been prcseiwed.^^® Consequently the conjecture 
that it may possibly have been the representation of Greek 
dramas at the courts of the Grecian kings iii Bactria, in 
the raiijab,and in Gujarat (for so far did Greek supremacy 
for a time extend), which awakened the Hindii faculty of 
imitation, and so gave birth to the Indian drama, does not 
in the meantime admit of direct verification. But its his- 

torical possibility, at any rate, is undeniable,^'^ especially as 
the older dramas nearly all belong to the west of India. 
No internal connection, however, with the Greek drama 
exists. The fact, again, that no dramas are found either 

See Cowell in 7 . v, 475 ; 
and aa to tlie Kansa-vadba and Vali- 
bandha, the note on p. 198 above. 

Cf. the Introduction to iny 
translation of the Mdlavikil, p, xivii., 
and the reniarks on Yaxanikd in Z. 
D. M, 6*., xiv. 269; also /. Bt.y x.ii. 

-1** The leading work on the In- 
dian dramas is still Wilson’s Select 
Specimens of the Theatre of the li in- 
dusy i 83SS 1871®. The number of 
dramas that have been published in 
India is already very considerable, 
and is constantly being increased. 
Foremost amongst tliem still remain: 
— the Mrichhakaiikdoi ^ddraka, the 
three dramas of Kdliddsa {^ahuntald, 
Uwa^y and Mdlafnkd)^ Bhavabhifiti’s 
three {Mdlaii-mddhava, Makd-vlru- 
charitray and Vttara-rdina-charitra)) 
— ih^Ralndmli of King Sri-Harsha- 
deva, composed, according to Wil- 
son’s view, in the twelfth centuiy, 
and that not by the king himself, 
but by the poetDhdvaka, who lived 
at his court, but according to Hall, 
by the poetBana in the beginning of 
the seventh century ; see Hall, In- 
troduction to the Vdsavadattd, p. 
iSflF. (cf. note 212 above), 7 . Str.y i. 

356), Lit. Cent. Bl.y 1872, p. 614; — 
the Ndgdnanday a Btultlhistic sen- 
sational piece ascribed to the same 
royal author, but considered by 
Cowell to belong to Dhdvaka (see, 
however, my notice of Boyd’s trans- 
lation in Lit. C. B.y 1872, p. 615) ; — 
the Veni-sa7}fihdra of Bhatta-iulni- 
ya^a, a piece pervaded by the colour- 
ing of the Krishna sect, written, 
according to Grill, who edited it in 
1871, in the sixth, and in any case 
earlier than tlie tenth century (see 

Lit. C. B.y 1872, p. 612);^ — the 

Viddha-idlishhafLjikd of Kdja-Sekha- 
ra, probably prior to the tenth 
century (see 1. Sir.^ i. 313) ; — the 
Mudrd'Vdkshasa of Vi^dkbadatta, a 
jdt'Ce of political intrigue, of about 
the twelfth century ; and lastly, tlie 
Prabodha-chandrodaya of Kfishna- 
midra, \vhich dates, according to 
Goldstiicker, from the end of the 
same century. — Tw'o of Kdlidilsa’s 
di-amas, the Sakuntald and Urvasi, 
are each extant in several recensions, 
evidently in consequence of their 
having enjoyed a very special popu- 
larity. Since the a]>peaiance of 
Pischel’s pamphlet, I)e Kaiiddsae 
Sa kuntali Rece n sion thus (Breslau, 



in the literature of the Hindiis, who emigrated to the 
island of Java about the year 500 a.d. (and thence subse- 
quently to Bali), or among the Tibetan translations, is per- 
haps to be explained, in the former case, by the circumstance 
that the emigration took place from tlie east coast of India,* 
where dramatic literature may not as yet have been spe- 
cially cultivated (?). But in the case of the Tibetans the 
fact is more surprising, as the Meghaduta of Kdlidasa and 
other similar works are found among their translations. 

The Lyrical branch of Sanskrit poetry divides itself, 
according to its subject, into the Religious and the Erotic 
Lyric. With respect to the former, we have already seen, 
when treating of tlie Atliarva-Sarnhita, that the hymns of 
this collection are no longer the expression of direct reli- 
gious emotion, but are rather to be looked upon as the 
utterance of superstitious terror and uneasy apprehension, 
and that in part they bear the direct cliaracter of magic 
spells and incantations. This same character is found 
faithfully preserved in the later religious lyrics, throughout 
the Epic, the Puranas, and the Upanishads, wherever 
prayers of the sort occur ; and it has finally, within the 
last few centuries, found its classical expression in the 
Tantra literature. It is in particular by the heaping up of 
titles under which the several deities are invoked that 
their favour is thought to be won; and the ‘thousand- 
name-prayers’ form quite a special class by themselves. 
To this category belong also the prayers in amulet-form, 
to which a prodigious virtue is ascribed, and which enjoy 
the very highest repute even in the present day. Besides 
these, we also meet with prayers, to Siva j* especially, which 

1870), ill which he contends, with this Kavi literature, moreover, we 
great confidence, for the greater au- have actually extant, in the Sinara- 
thenticity of ihe so-called Bcngdll dahana, a subsequent version of the 
recension, the questions connectetl Kuinflra-sambhava, and in the 8u- 
herewith liave entered upon anew mana-saiitaka (?) a similar version 
stage. ^ See a full discussion of this of tlie Raghu-vansa,t.e., works which, 
topic in /. xiv. i6l fF. To in their originals at least, bear the 
Pischel we are also indebted for our name of Kibiddsa ; see /. St, iv. 133. 
knowledice t)f the Dekhan receiision 141.] Do the well-known Javanese 
of the Urvasi : it appeared in the puppet-shows owe their origin to the 
Monatsber. dcr BerL Acad., 1875, pp. Indian drama ? 

609-670. -f- Wlio.-^e worship appears, in the 

* Yet the later em'igrants might main, to have exercised the most fav- 
havc taken some with them! [In ourable influence upon his followers, 



for religious fervour and childlike trust will bear compaii- 
son with the best hymns of the Christian Church, though, 
it must be admitted, their number is very small. 

The Erotic Lyric commences, for us, with certain of the 
poems attributed to Kalidasa. One of these, the Megha- 
d'Cda, belongs at aU events to a period when the temple 
worship of ^iva Mahakala at IJjjayiiu was in its prime, 
as was still the case at the time of the first Muhammadan 
conquerors. Together with other matter of a like sort, it 
has been admitted, and under Kalidasa’s name, into the 
Tibetan Tandjur,* from which, however, no chronological 
deduction can be drawn, as the date of the final completion 
of this compilation is unknown. The subject of the Megha- 
diita is a message which an exile sends by a cloud to his 
distant love, together with the description of the route the 
cloud-messenger is to take — a form of exposition which has 
been imitated in a considerable number of similar poems. 
A peculiar class is composed of the sentences of Bhartrihari, 

whereas it is the worship of Kpishria 225 volumes. * It is divided into the 
that has chiefly countenanced and J^gyud and the Mdo (rantra and 
furthered the moral degradation of Sdtra classes^ in Sanskrit). The 
the Hindtis. Rgyud, mostly on tanirxka rituals 

. 3 ie ^ ygj.y definite chronological and ceremonies^ makes 87 volumes, 
detail would be furnished by v, 14, The Mdo, on science and literature, 
providedMallindtba’sassertioniswar- occupies 136 volumes. One separate 
ranted, to the elDfect that this verse volume contains (58) hymns or 
is to be taken in a double sense, t.e., praises on several deities or saints, 
as referring at ilie same time to and one volume is the index for the 
Diflniga, a violent opponent of Kd- whole,— The Rgyud contains 2640 
liddsa. For in that case we should treatises of different sizes ; they treat 
in all probability have to understand in general of the rituals and cere- 
by Dillndga the well-known Bud- monies of the mystical doctrine of 
dhist disputant of this name, wlio the Buddhists, interspersed with 
lived somewhere about the sixth cen- many instructions, hymns, prayers, 
tury ; see my discussion of this point and incantations. — The Mdo treats 
in Z. D. M. (?., xxii. 726 ff, in general of science and literature 

* Considering the scarcity of the in the following order : theology, 
Asiatic Researches^ I here give philosophy " (these two alone make 
Csoma Koiosi’s account of the Tan- 94 volumes), “logic or dialectic, 
djur, contained in vol. xx., 1836, in philology or grammar, rhetoric, 
some detail. “ The Bstan-Hgyuris poesy, prosody, synonymies, astro- 
a compilation in Tibetan of all sorts nomy, astrology, medicine and ethics, 
of literary works” (in all some 3900), some bints to the mechanical arts 
“written mostly by ancient Indian and histories,” See further, in par- 
Fan^its and some learned Tibetans ticular, Anton Schiefnor’s paper, 
in the first centuries after the intro- Ueher die loyischen und gramwati- 
ductiou of Buddhism into Tibet, schen Wcrle im Tandjur^ in the Ihil- 
commencing with the seventh cen- letin of tlie St. Pctcrsliurg Academy 
tury of our era. The whole makes (read 3d September 1847). 




Amaru, &c., which merely portray isolated situations, with- 
out any connection as a whole. A favourite topic is the 
story of the loves of Krishna and the shepherdesses, the 
playmates of his youth. It has already been remarked that 
the later Kavyas are to be ranked with the erotic poems 
rather than with the epic. In general, tins love-poetry is of 
the most unbridled and extravagantly sensual description ; 
yet examples of deep and truly romantic tenderness of feel- 
ing are not wanting. It is remarkable that, in regard to 
some of these poems, we encounter the same phenomenon 
as in the case of the Song of Solomon : a mystical interpre- 
tation is put upon them, and in one instance at least, the 
Gita-Govinda of Jayadeva,^^®* such a mystical reference 
ap])ears really to have been intended by the poet, however 
incompatible this may at first sight seem with the particu- 
larly wanton exuberance of fancy which is here displayed. 

Of the Ethico-Didactic Poetry — the so-called Niti-^ds- 
tras — but little has survived in a complete form (some 
pieces also in the Tibetan Tandjur), no doubt because the 
great epic, the Maha-Bharata, in consequence of the char- 
acter of universality which was gradually stamped upon 
it, is itself to be regarded as such a Mti-6astra. Still, 
relics enough of the aphoristic ethical poetry have been 
preserved to enable us to judge that it was a very favourite 

form, and achieved very excellent results.^^o Closely allied 

si9a Biihler (letter Sep, Muir’s Jhligious and Moral Senti- 

^875), Jayadova, who docs not ap- meyitsfi-om Sanskrit Writers (1875). 
pear ill the Sarasv.-kanthiibh., flou- llegardiiig an anthology which, both 
rished under king Lakshmanasena of in extent and antiquity, surpasses 
Gau^a, of whom there is extant an tliat of 6drngadhara, viz,, the Sad- 
inscription of the year 1116, and nkti - karndmrita of ^lidharaddsa, 
whose ora, still current in Mithil^'i, compiled 1127 (a.d. 1205), and 
begins, acc. to ImL AiiL iv. 300, in comprising quotations from 446 
A.D. H70. poets, see the latest number of llitj. 

See Bohtlingk’s critie<al edition J 41 a Mitra’s Notices, iii. 134-149. 
of those aphorisms, /ndisc/ic iSi/jriic/fC, The stitement at the close of the 
3 vols., 1863-65 (with 5419 2d work respecting the era of king 
edition, 1870-73 (with vv.), Lnkshmapasena, in whose service the 

and Aufrecht’s analysis, in the Z. poet’s father was, is both in itself 
D. M. G,, xxvii. I flf. (1873)2 the obscure, and does not well harmonise 
Sdrngadhara-Paddhati, of the four- witli our other information on the 
teentli century, — an anthology of point. On account of the numerous 
about 6000 vv, culled from 264 dif- examples it quotes we may also here 
ferent authors and works. Compare mention the Sarnsvati-kanilidhliara- 
also Job. Ivlatt, De Trcccntis Ghana- na, a treatise on poetics attributed 
kyae Sententiis (*873), and Dr. John to king Bhoja-deva, and theiefore 



to it is the literature of the ‘ Beast- Fable,’ which has a very 
special interest for us, as it forms a substantial link of 
connection with the West. We have already pointed 
out that the oldest animal-fables known to us at pre- 
sent occur in the Chhandogyopanishad. Nor are these 
at all limited there to tlie representation of the gods as 
assuming the forms of animals, and in this shape associat- 
ing with men, of which we liave even earlier illustrations,* 
but animals are themselves introduced as the speakers and 
actors. In Panini’s time, complete cycles of fables may 
possibly have already existed, but this is by no means 
certain as yet.t The oldest fables, out of India, are 
those of Babrius, for some of which at least the Indian 

origmal may be pointed out. 

belonging probably to the eleventh 
century ; Bee on it Aufrecht, Cata* 
logiiBt pp. 208, 209. — To this class 
also belongSi though its contents are 
almost entirely erotic, the Prdkpit 
anthology of Hdln, consisting pro- 
perly of only ^oo verses (whence its 
name Sapta^iataJea), which, how- 
ever, by successive recensions have 
grown to 1100-1200. It was the pro- 
totype of t\iQ Sapta-mtioi Govardha- 
na, a work of about the twelfth cen- 
tury, which in its turn seems to have 
served as the model for the Satta- 
sai of the Hindi poet Bihdri Lai ; sec 
my Essay on the Sapta-^ataka of 
Hdla (1870), pp. 9, I2j and Z. D, 3 /. 
Q,y zxviii. 345 ff. (1874), and also 
Garrez in the Joum, Asiaty August 
1872, p. 197 ff. 

* For instance, the story of Manu 
and the fish, Indra’s metamorphosis 
into the birds markata and kapifija- 
lOy his appearance in the form of a 
ram, &c. In the Rik the sun is fre- 
quently compared to a vulture or 
falcon hovering in the air. 

•f* The words cited in support of 
this are not P^iui's own, but Lis 
scholiast’s (see p, 225), [But, at 
all events, they occur directly in 
the Mah^bhdshya ; see /. xiii. 


In my paper, Ueler dm Zu~ 
mmmenhang indxBcher Fabdn mit 

But the most ancient book 

giieckuchen (I, Sty iii. 327 ff.), as 
the result of special investigations 
bearing upon A, Wagenei-^s Essay 
on the subject (1853), I arrived at 
exactly the opposite conclusion ; for 
in nearly every instance where a 
Greek fable was compared with the 
corresponding Indian one, the marks 
of originality appeared to me to be- 
long to the funner. Jn all proba- 
bility the Buddhists were here the 
special medium of comniunication, 
since it is upon their popular form 
of literary exjatsition that the Indian 
fable and fairy-tale literature is spe- 
cially based. Otto Keller, it is true, 
in his tract, Utber die Oesckichte der 
grieck, Fabcl (1862), maintains, in 
opposition to my view, the Indian 
origin of the fables common to India 
and Greece, and suggests an ancient 
Assyrian channel of communication. 
His main argument for their Indian 
origin is derived from the circum- 
stance that the relation existing in 
Greek fal>le between the fox and 
the lion has no real basis in the na- 
ture of the two animals, whereas 
the jackal does, as a matter of 
fact, stand to tlie lion in the rela- 
tion portrayed in Indian fable. But 
are jackals, then, only found in In- 
dia, and not also in countries inha- 
bited by Semitic peoples? And is 
not the Greek animal-fable precisely 



of fables extant is the Paficha-tantra. The original text 
of this work has, it is true, undergone great alteration and 
expansion, and cannot now be restored with certainty; 
but its existence in the sixth century a.d. is an ascertained 
fact, as. it was then, by comnaand of tlie celebrated Sas- 
sanian king Niishirvan (reg. 53i-579)> translated into 
Pahlavf. From this translation, as is well known, sub- 
sequent versions into almost all the languages of Asia 
Minor and Europe have been derived.®^ The recension 
of the extant text seems to have taken place in the 
Dekhan ; while the epitome of it known as the Ilito- 
padeia was probably drawn up at Palibothra, on the 
Ganges. The form of the Hindii collections of fables is 
a peculiar one, and is therefore everywhere easily recog- 
nisable, the leading incident which is narrated invariably 
forming a framework within which stories of the most 
diverse description are set.* — Allied to the fables are the 

a Semitic growth ? Thnt the Indians in t\\& Bombay Sanskrit Sei-iet {iZSi 
should turn the fox of the Greek fT.). 

fable back again into the jackal From Benfey’s researches, it 

necessarily followed from the very appears that, in this recension, the 
nature of the case. The actual state original text, which presumably 
of things, namely, that the jackal rested on a Buddhistic basis, under* 
prowls about after the lion, Lad in- went very important changes, so 
deed early attracted their attention ; that, curiously enough, a German 
see, €,g,i ?,ik, x. 28, 4 ; but there is translation made in the last quai-ter 
no evidence at all that in the older of the fifteenth century from a 
period the knowledge was turned to Latin rendering, which in its turn 
the use to which it is put in the fable, was based upon a Hebrew version, 
the only characteristics mentioned represents the ancient text more 
of the jiickal being its howling, its faitlifully than its existing Sanskpit 
devouring of carrion, and its enmity form does. Of this, for the rest, two 
to the dog, (In Sacap., xii. 5. 2. 5, or more other recensions are extant ; 
the jackal is, it is true, associated see I, ii. 166. For the 14th 

with the word vidaydha^ and this is chap, of the Kalila \va Diinna, no 
certainly noteworthy; but here the Indian original bad been known to 
term simply signiiies ‘burnt* or exist ; but quite recently a Tibetan 
‘putrid.’) Keller’s views as to the translation of this original has been 
high antiquity of the Indian authors discovered hy Anton Schiefner ; see 
he cites are unfounded. his Bharatac Ilc-^p^Tosaj St. Peters- 

--- See on this Benfey’s tran. 5 la- burg, 1875* Gu a newly discovered 
tion (1859) of the Paheha-tantra, ancimit Syriac transhition of the 
which follows Kosegarten’s edition groundwork of the I'ahcha-tantra, 
of the text (1848). Here there is a made, it is supposed, either from the 
full exposition of the whole subject Pahlavl or from the Sanskrit itself, 
of tlie later diffusion of the mate- s<?e Benfey in the Augshurger AUg, 
rials of Indian fable throughout the Zeit, for July 12, 1871. 

West. Kielhorn and Biihler have * Precisely the same thing takoa 
published a new edition of the text place in the Mahii-Bhdrata also. 



Fairy Tales and Romances,^ in which the luxuriant 
fancy of the Hindiis has in the most wonderful degree put 
forth all its peculiar grace and charm. These too share 
with the fables the characteristic form of setting just re- 
ferred to, and thereby, as well as by num(;rous points of 
detail, they are sufficiently marked out as the original 
source of most of the Arabian, Persian, and Western fairy 
tales and stories ; although, in the meantime, very few 
of the corresponding Indian texts themselves can be 
pointed out. 

As regards the last branch of Indian poetry, namely, 
Geography and History, it is characteristic enough that the 
latter can only fittingly be considered as a branch of poetry ; 
and that not merely on account of its form — for the poetic 
form belongs to science also — but on account of its subject- 
matter as well, and the method in which this is handled. 

We might perhaps have introduced it as a division of the 
epic poetry ; but it is preferable to keep the two distinct, 
since the works of the class now in question studiously 
avoid all matter of a purely mythical description. We 
have already remarked that the old Puranas contained 
historical portions, which, in the existing Puranas, are con- 
fined to the mere nomenclature of dynasties and kings; 
and that here they clash violently, not only vdth one 
another, but with chronology generally. We meet with 
the same discrepancies in all wmrks of the class we are 
now considering, and especially in its leading representa- 
tive, Kalhana’s Rdja-taramgini, or history of Kaslimfr, 
which belongs to the twelfth century a.d. Here, it is 

Here, before all, is to be 
mentioned Soinadeva’e Kathd-sarit- 
sd/jara, of the twelfth century, edited 
by Henn. Brockhans (1839-66), Of 
the Vfdhat-lcathd of be- 

longing to about the sixth century — 
a work which is supposed to have 
been written in the PaUdchl hhdshdy 
and which is the l)asis of the work 
of Somadeva, — a recast by Kshe- 
maipkara has recently been dis- 
covered by Burnell and Biibler, see 
Ind. Antiq,,\. 302 ff. (Kshemaip- 
kara is also called Kshemendra; 
according to Biibler (letter from 

Kashmir, pub. in /, SL , xiv. 402 ff , ) 
he lived under king Ananta (1028- 
loSo), and wrote 1020-1040). — The 
Da^a-koTTidra’Charita of Dantjin, be- 
longing to about the sixth century, 
was edited by Wilson in 1846, and by 
Buhlerin 1873; Subandhu’s Vdsava- 
ilattd (seventh century ?) was edited 
by Hall, with an excellent critical in- 
troduction, in 1859 {BibL Ind,): 
Bdna's Kddcimharif of about the 
same date, appeared at Cfilcutta in 
1850. For an account of these last 
three works see my I, L 308- 




true, we have to do with something more than mere bald 
data; but then, as a set-off to this, we have also to do 
with a poet, one who is more poet than historian, and who, 
for the rest, appeals to a host of predecessors. It is only 
where the authors of these works treat of contemporary 
subjects that their statements possess a decided value; 
though, of course, precisely with respect to these, their judg- 
ment is in the highest degree biassed. But exceptions like- 
wise appear to exist, and in particular, in some princely 
houses, family records, kept by the domestic priests, appear 
to have been preserved, which, in the main,* seem to be 
passably trustworthy.^^ — As for Geography, we repeatedly 

* Only the family pedigree must 
not enter into the question, for these 
genealogical tables go back almost 
regularly to the heroic families of 
the epic. 

a 25 Certain statements in the astro- 
logical treatise Gdrgt Sariihitd, cap. 
Yuga Purd^a, in which the relations 
of the Yavanas with India are 
touched upon (sec Kern, Pref. to 
Bjrihat-Samhitd, p. 33 ff.)» to 

have a real historical significance. 
Bd^a’s Hdreha-ckarUaj too, seems 
to be a work embodying some good 
information ; see Hall, Pref. to the 
Vdsava-dattd, p. 12 ff. (1859). And 

the same remark applies to the 
Vikramdnka-charita by Bil liana of 
Kashmir, in 18 iargaSj composed 
about A.D. 1085, just edited with 
a very valuable introduction by 
Biihler. This work supplies most 
important and authentic informa- 
tion, not only regarding the poet’s 
native country, and the chief cities 
of India visited by him in the course 
of prolonged travels, but also as to 
the history of the Chdlukya dynasty, 
whose then representative, Tribhu- 
vana-rnalla, the work is intended to 
exalt. In Bubler’s opinion, we may 
hope for some further accession to 
our historical knowledge from the 
still existing libraries of the Jainas, 
and, I might add, from their special 
literature also, which is peculiarly 
rich in legendary works {chaHtra). 
The $atrai]ijaya-mdhdtmya of Dha- 

nedvara, in 14 sarga^^ composed in 
Valabhi, under king ^ildditya, at 
the end of the sixth century, yields, 
it is true, but scant historical ma* 
tcrial, and consists for the most part 
merely of popular tales and legenda ; 
see my paper on it (1858), p. 12 £F, 
{Buhler,i. c., p. 18, places this work 
as late as the thirteenth century ; 
similarly, Lassen, L AK.^ iv. 761, 
but see my Essay on the Bhagavati, 
i. 369.) Still, a great variety 
of information has been preserved 
by the Jainas, which deserves 
attention ; for example, respecting 
the ancient kings Yikramdrka and 
^dlivdhana, though, to be sure, 
they, too, have become almost wholly 
mythical figures. The Vira~chwrit/ra 
of Ananta, lately analysed by H. 
Jacobi in L St,, xiv. 97 ff., describes 
the feuds between the descendants 
of these two kings ; introducing a 
third legendary personage, Stidraka, 
who, aided by the Mdlava king, the 
son of Yikramdrka, succeds in oust- 
ing the son of ^dlivdhana from Pra- 
tisb^hdua. It is written in a fresh 
and graphic style, but, to all ap- 
pearance, it has only a very slight 
really historical nucleus ; indeed, it 
expressly claims to bo an imitation 
of the Kdmdvana ! The Sinhdsana- 

V • 

dvdtrhiHkd, too, a work extant in 
several recensions, of which one, 
the Vikyama-cfimnlra (see above, 
p. 200), is attributed to Yararuchi, 
is almost solely, as the Vctdla-pafl' 



find, in the various Puranas, jejune enumerations of moun- 
tains, rivers, peoples, and the like.^ But modern works, 
also, upon this subject are quoted: these, however, are 
known only by name. — A leading source, besides, for 
history and geography, is supplied by the exceedingly 
numerous inscriptions and grants,* whicli, indeed, being 
often of very considerable extent, might almost pass as a 
special branch of the literature. Tliey are usually drawn 
up in prose, though mostly with an admixture of verse. 
Of coins the number is comparatively small; yet they 
have furnished surprisingly rich information regarding a 
period previously quite unknown in its details, the period 
of the Grecian kings of Bactria.^'^ 

From this general view of Sanskrit poetry, we now 
turn to the second division of Sanskrit literature, to the 
works of Science and Art. 

cAat't/l?a^i is exclusively, made up of tioned in Ydjnavalkya’s law-book 
matter of the fairy-tale description, and in the Pa!icha-tantra : in Manu's 
The stories in the Bkoja-prahandha Code they are not yet known, [See 
of king Bhoja and his court of the special accounts given of these 
poets, are mere fanciful inventions, inBurneir8iiY!rffi. of S, Ind. Palceog,^ 
— Biihler, in his letter from Kash- p. 63 IF.] 

mir (/. St,y liv# 404, 405), states that Wilson’s Ariana Antigua (1841) 

he has now also discovered the and Lassen’s Induclie Alterthumi- 
Nila~mata which was used by Kal- hinde (1847-61) still form the chief 
hnna, as also the Tararp^iniB of mine of information and basis of 
Kehemendra and Heldrdja ; for the research in the field of Indian his- 
lldja-taraipginl itself there is thus tory. In the department of Nu- 
the prospect of important correc- mismatics and Inscriptions, Burgess, 
tions, Burnell, Cunningham, Dowson, Eg- 

2-® Of special interest, in tliis re- geling, Fergusson, Edw. Thomas, 
gard, are the sections styled Vaux, Bhandarkar, and Rdjendra 

vihhdga in the astrological texts ; Ldla Mitra have of late done emi- 
see Kem, Pref, to Brih. Sarnh,^ p, iient service. In connection with 
32, and in /. St,y x. 209 ff. Cun- the so-called cave-inscriptions, the 
ningham’s otherwise most merito- names of Bhdu Dilji, Bird, Steven- 
rious work, Andmt Otograjiky of son, E, W. and A. A. West, Wes- 
India (1871), has unfortunately tergaard, and J. Wilson, amongst 
taken no account of these. others, may be mentioned, 

* On metal plates, first men- 



We give the precedence to the Science of Language,^ 
and take Grammar first. 

We have already had frequent occasion to allude to the 
early beginnings and gradual development of grammatical 
science. It grew up in connection with the study and 
recitation of the' Vedic texts ; and those works which were 
specially devoted to it, protected by the sacredness of their 
subject, have, in part, survived. But, on the other hand, 
we have no records of the earlier stages of that gram- 
matical study which was directed to and embraced the 
entire range of the language ; * and we pass at once into 
the magnificent edifice whicli bears the name of Panini as 
its architect,' and which justly commands the wonder and 
admiration of every one who enters.f Panini’s grammar 
is distinguished above all similar works of other countries, 
partly by its thoroughly exhaustive investigation of the 
roots of the language, and the formation of words ; partly 
by its sharp precision of expression, which indicates with 
an enigmatical succinctness whether forms come under the 
same or different rules. This is rendered possible by the 
employment of an algebraic terminology of arbitrary con- 
trivance, the several parts of which stand to each, other in 
the closest harmony, and which, by the very fact of its 
sufficing for aU the phenomena which the language pre- 
sents, bespeaks at once the marvellous ingenuity of its 
inventor, and his profound penetration of the entire ma- 
terial of the language. It is not, indeed, to be assumed 
that Panini was altogether the inventor of this method ; 
for, in the first place, he directly presupposes, for example, 
a collection of primary affixes (Jln-ddi ) ; and, in the second 
place, for various grammatical elements there occur in his 
work two sets of technical terms, the one of which is 
peculiar to himself, while the other, as testified by his 

T2S general assertion in tbe * Only in Ydska’s Nirukti are 
Mahdbhdshya to i, i. l f, 44ft (cMan- beginnings of the kind preserved; 
dovat sitMni bhavanti) which as- yet here etymology and the investi- 
cribes Vedic usage to Sdtras in gation of roots and of the formation 
general, is explained by Kaiya^a in of words are still in a very crude 
the sense that, not the vaikdtika- stage, 

sutraniy for example, but only the + of Vhre Pons so long ago 
v^dkcn^ana'SHlrdni are here meant, as 1743, in the 26 

since these latter belong to the Veda 224 (Paris), 
as ajlga ; see L St., xiii. 453 - 



commentators, is taken from the Eastern grammarians.* 
But at any rate, it seems to have been he who generalised 
the method, and extended it to the entire stock of the 
language. Of those of his predecessors whom he men- 
tions directly by name, and whose names recur in part in 
Yaska’s Nirukti, tlie Pratif^akhya-Siitras, or the Aranyakas, 
some may possibl}'- have worked before him in this field ; 
in particular, ^akatayana perhaps, whose grammar is sup- 
posed (Wilson, Mach. GolL, i. 160) to be still in existence, 
although nothing definite is known about it.^ 

The question now arises. When did Panini live ? Boht- 
lingk, to whom we owe an excellent edition of the gram- 
mar, has attempted to fix his date for the middle of the 
fourth century B.C., but the attempt seems to be a failure. 
Of the reasons adduced, only one has any approach to 
plausibility, which is to the effect that in tlie Kathd-sarit- 
sagara, a collection of popular tales belonging to the 
twelfth century, Panini is stated to have been the disciple 
of one Varsha, who lived at Pataliputra in the reign of 
Kanda, the father of Chandragupta {XavZpoKVTrro^;). But 
not only is the authority of such a work extremely ques- 
tionable in reference to a period fifteen centuries earlier ; 
the assertion is, besides, directly contradicted, both as to 
time and place, by a statement of the Buddhist Hiuan 
Thsang, who travelled through India in the first half of 
the seventh century. For Hiuan Thsang, as reported by 
Reinaud {M 4 m. mr UInde, p. 88), speaks of a double exist- 
ence of Panini, the earlier one belonging to mythical times, 
while the second is put by him 500 years after Buddha’s 

* See Holitliiigk in tlie Introduc- iumgelf a Jaina, in liis introduction 
tioa to his Panini, p. xii., and in describes Sdkatdyana also as such — 
his trac^ Uchcr ikn Accent ivi San- namely, as ^ inaM 4 ramana~samghd- 
djit, p. 64. dhipati;* see also L xiii. 396, 

In Benfey’s Orient und Occi~ 397. In Burneirs opinion, Van 4 a- 
li. 691-706 (1863), and iii. 181, Bnlhm., p. xli., many of ^akatd- 
182 (1864), G. Biibler has given an yaiia’s rules are, on the contrary, 
account of a commentary {chinUl’ based upon Panini, or even on the 
mani-ijitti) on \\\c SahddmddBana oi nay, even on the further 

^akatdyana, according to which (p. interpretations in the Mahdhhdshya. 
703) Panini\s work would appear to l^Iight not those contradictions be 
be sim]»iy “an improved, completed, explained by supposing that the ex- 
and in part remodelled edition” isting form of liie work combines 
of that of ^Sakatdyana, The author both old and new constituents/ 
of this conimcntar}', Yakshavarman, 



death, ie., lOO years later than the reign of king Kanishka, 
who lived, as lie says, 400 years after Buddha * As Kani- 
shka is proved by coins to have reigned down to a.d. 40 
(Lassen, L AK., ii. 413), Panini, according to this, would 
have to be placed not earlier than a.d. 140. A statement so 
precise, obtained by Hiuan Thsang on the spot, can hardly 
be a mere invention ; while no significance need be attached 
to the earlier mythical existence, nor to the circumstance 
that he makes Panini a Buddhist.^ As Pbonini’s birth- 
place he mentions Pholotoulo, some six miles north-west of 
the Indus, and this agrees with the name ‘ ^alaturfya,’ the 
formation of which is explained by Panini, and which in 
later writings is an epithet applied to the grammarian 
himself ; ‘ f^alatura,’ the basis of the name, being phone- 
tically identical t with the Chinese ‘ Pholotoulo.’ That 
Pdnini belonged to precisely this north-western district of 

* The text of Hiuan Thsang is heretical tendencies in his former 
unfortunately not yet accessible : it birth, had not yet attained emanci- 
seems to be much more important pation, and had now been born again 
than the description of Fa Hian^s as his son ; see /. SU^ v. 4. 
travels, and to enter considerably t The commentators make Sdld* 
more into detail. [This blank has tura the residence of Pd^ini's an* 
since been filled up by Stan. Julien’s cestors. and thisis, in fact, the sense 
translation of the biography and in which Pacini’s rule is to be taken, 
memoirs of Hiuan Thsang (1857 AT., But the Chinese traveller, who ob- 
3 vols.). From this it now appears tained his information on the spot, 
that the above statement, communi- is assuredly a better authority, especi- 
cated from the text by Reinaud, is ally as it has to be remarked that 
not quite exact. Tlic real existence the rule in question (iv. 3, 94), ac- 
of Pdnini is not there placed 500 cording to the Calcutta scholiasts, is 
years alter lJuddha at all : all that not explained in the Bhdshya, and 
is said is, that at that date there may possildy, therefore, not be Pdni- 
still existed in his birthplace a ni’s at all, but posterior to^ the time 
8*atue erected in bis honour (see of Patamjali, [The name Sdldturiya 
Siyukij i. 127); whereas he himself does not, in fact, occur in the Bhdshya; 
passed as belonging * dans une haute but, on the other hand,Pdnini is there 
antiqnitd.’] styled Ddksbiputra, and the family 

Tiie true state of the case is, of the Ddkshis belonged to the Vd- 
rather, that with regard to Pdnini’s hikas in the North-West ; see L St,y 
date there is no direct st itemcnt at xiii. 395, 367. The name Sdlaflki 
all: a legend merely is communi- also, which is bestowed on him in 
cated of a Buddhist missionary who later writings, and which actually 
had taken part in the council under occurs in tlie Bhdshya, though it 
king Kanishka, and who came from does not clearly appear that he is 
it to Pduini*s birthplace. Here he meant by it, leads us to the Vdhikas; 
intimated to a Brahman, wltom he see /. xiii. 395, 375, 429. Iliuan 
found chastising his son during a Thsang expressly describes Pdpini 
lesson in grammar, that the youth as belonging to the Gaudhtow 
was Pdiiini himself, who, for his (rdvSa/xK),] 


India, rather than to the east, results pretty plainly from 
the geographical data contained in his work;* still he 
refers often enough to the eastern parts of India as well, 
and, though horn in the former district, he may perhaps 
have settled subsequently in the latter. Of the two re- 
maining arguments by moans of which Bohtlingk seeks to 
determine Panini’s date, the one, based on the posteriority 
of Amara-sinha, “ who himself lived towards the middle 
of the first century B.C.,” falls to the ground when the 
utter nullity of this latter assumption is exposed. The 
other is drawn from the Kaja-tararngipf, a rather doubtful 
source, belonging to the same period as the Katha-sarit- 
sagara, and rests, moreover, upon a confusion of the 
Northern and Southern Buddhist eras, consequently upon 

a very insecure foundation. In that work it is related 
that the Mahabhashya, or great commentary on Panini, 
which is ascribed to Patamjali, was, hy the command of 
king Abhimanyu, introduced into Ms dominions by 
Chandra, who had himself composed a grammar. Now 


the Northern Buddhists agree in stating that Kanishka, 
the immediate predecessor of Abhimanyu, lived 400 years 
after Buddha’s death. If, therefore, with the Southern 
Buddhists, "we place this event in the year b.c. 544, then, 
of course, the date to be assigned to Kanishka would be 
B.c. 144, and to Abhimanyu B.c. 120, or thereabouts.t 
But upon the evidence of coins, wliich are at all events 
a sure authority Kanishka (Kancrki) reigned until A.D. 

40 (Lassen, 7 . AK. 

• • 


therefore must have reigned 160 years later than the 
date derived from the previous supposition — according to 
Lassen ( 1 . c.), tiU a.d, 65. Consequently, even admitting 
Bohtlingk’s further reasoning, we should still have to fix 
Panini’s date, not for b.c. 'tw or thereabouts, as his result 

gives, but 160 years later at any rate. But in view of 

* The circuMisUiicc (hat the only 
two works containing legends con- 
cerning him and the commentary 
upon his grammar — the Kathd-sarit- 
sdgara and the Rdja-taramgini — 
were both written in Kashmir, also 
tells in favour of tiiis view. [On 
the geographical data in Fdnini, 
gee Bhandarkar in Ind. Antiq,^ i., 

21 (1872), also /. St.y xiii. 302, 

t As Bohtlingk, op. cU., p. xvii., 
xviii., supposes ; see also Keinaud, 
316771 , 8 U 7 ' I'Lide, p. 79, 

J Of these Bohtlingk could not 
avail himself, as they only came to 
our knowledge some years after hiu 
edition of Pi^ini appeared. 



Hiuan Thsang’s assertion, no credit whatever need at pre- 
sent be attached to the statement in the Eaja-taramginl 
If Panini did not really flourish until lOo years after 
Kanishka, ie., a.u. 140,“^ it is self-evident that the com- 
mentary upon his work cannot have been in existence, 
and still less have been introduced into Kashmir, under 
Abhimanyu, Kanishka’s immediate successor! — But, apart 
altogether from the foregoing considerations, we have, in 
Panini’s work itself, a very weighty argument which goes 
to show that the date to be assigned to him can by no 
means be so early as Bbhtlingk supposes (about B.c. 350). 
For in it Panini once mentions the Yavanas, i.e., *Idove<i, 
Greeks,* and explains the formation of the word yavandni 

But no such inference is de- 
duciblo from Iliuuii Tiisang’s ac- 
count, now tliat wo are in possession 
of its exact tenor (see note 230 
above) : the staUinent of the Rdja- 
taraipgiirii is thus in no way im- 
pugned by it. 

* Lassen (/. AK,^ i. 729) asserts 
that the most ancient meaning 
of the word yavana was probably 
^ Arabia,* because incense, which 
came from Arabia, was termed yd- 
vana; but this assertion is distinctly 
erroneous. So far ns we know at 
present, this latter term fii*st occurs 
in the Amara-kosha, and there along 
Avith turmhka^ which can scarcely be 
a very ancient word. It may con- 
sequently cither date from the time 
of the commercial intercourse of the 
Indians with Arabia shortly before 
Muhammad, or even with the Mu- 
hammadan Arabs ; or else — like 
yaviintshfa, ‘tin’ [Hemach,, 1041, 
according to Bohtlingk-Bieu, ‘ lead,' 
not ‘ tin *], and yavana-priya ^ 
per,* the chief articles of trattic with 
the Greeks of Alexandria — it may 
possibly have been named, not from 
the Aral)3, but from tiie Greeks, wlio 
brought incense as well as tin and 
pepper from India (Lassen, L 
286 n.)! Wherever we find the 
Yavanas mentioned in the epic, or 
other similar ancient writings, only 
tlic Greeks can be meant. [The 
almost constant association of them 

with the Kambijas, Sakas, &c., is 
conclusive as to this; see 1 . Str., ii, 
321 ; /. SL, xiii. 371. The name 
Yavana was then in course of time 
transferred to tiic political successors 
of the Greeks in the empire of 
Western India, that is, to the Indo- 
Scylhians tlicinselves, to the Per- 
sians (Pdrasikus, whose Avomen, for 
example, are termed Yavanis by 
Kdliddsa in Raghuv., iv. 61), and, 
lastly, to the Arabs or Moslems ; see 
L SL, xiii. 308. Recently, it is true, 
Rt^endra Ldla Mitra, in the Journ. 
As. JSoc. Bcnff y 1874, p. 246 ff., lias 
pronounced airainst the vitw tliat 
the Greeks were originally meant by 
the Yavanas ; but his arguments are 
in great part of a very curious kind. 
Gf. further on this point my letter 
in the JncL AiUiq., \v, 244 flf, (1875), 
where, in particular, I point out that 
the name Yavana became popu- 
larised in India through Alexander, 
f.c., through his Persian interpretur.s, 
although it may possibly have been 
known previously through the me- 
dium of the Indian auxiliaries who 
scrA'ed i n the army of Darius.] — There 
is a remarkable legend in the Pu- 
rdnas and the twelfth book of the 
Mahd - Bhdrata, of the fight of 
Krishna with Kila-Yavana, Hhe 

• • 7 - 

Black Yavana, so called, it would 
appear, in contradistinction to the 
(White) Yavanas? Ought w’c here 
to understand African or dark Sem- 



— to which, according to the Vdrttika, the word hpi, 
‘ writing,’ must be supplied, and which therefore signifies 
‘the writing of the Yavanas.’^ — In the Panel) a- tan tra, 
Panini is said to have been killed by a lion ; but, inde- 
pendently of the question whether the particular verse 
containing this allusion belongs to the original text or not, 
no chronoloeical inference can be drawn from it.^^ 

itic races that had come into colli- 
sion with the Indians? At the 
time of the Da 4 a-kunidra, the name 
Kdla-Yavana (as well as Yavana 
itself) does, in point of fact, ex- 
pressly designate a seafaring people 
— supposed by Wilson to be the 
Arabs. In the legend in the Pu- 
rdnas and the Mahd-Bbdrata, on the 
contrary, no reference to the sea 
is traceable ; and Wilson therefore 
(Vishi^u-Pur., 565, 566) refers it to 
the Greeks, that is, those of Bactria. 
Tliis view is perhaps confirmed by 
the circumstance that this Kdla- 
Tavana is associated with a Gdrgya ; 
since it is to Garga^ at least, who 
uniformly appears as one of the 
earliest Indian astronomers, that a 
vei'se is ascribed, in wliich the Ya- 
vanas (here unquestionably the 
Greeks) ure highly extolled. Pos- 
sibly this is the very reason why 
Gdrgya is here associated with KdUi- 

232 por tlic difierent explanations 
that have been attempted of this 
word, see 1 , St.^ v. 5-8, 17 ff. ; 
Burnell, Elcm. of S, Ind, Pal. ^ p. 7, 
93: the latter regards it as ‘‘not 
unlikely that has been introduced 
into Indian from the Persian dtpf.” 
Benfcy also, in his Gesclii^ilite dev 
Sprachxoksenschafty p- 48 (1869), 
understands by Yavandni ‘Greek 
writing ; ’ but he places the comple- 
tion of Pdnini’s work as early asB.c, 
320. In that case, he thinks, Pdniui 
“ had already had the opportunity d ur- 
ingsix years of becoming acquainted 
with Greek writing in his own im- 
mediate neighbourhood without in- 
terruption, Alexander having, as is 
well known, established satrapies in 
India itself and in the parts adjoin- 

ing*’ — in the vicinity of tlie Indus,, near whicli Pd^ini's birth- 
place was. But to me it is very 
doubtful indeed that a space so short 
as six years should have sufiiced to 
give rise to the employment by the 
Indians of a special term and affix 
to denote Greek writing — (which 
snrely^ in the first years after Alex- 
ander’s invasion can hardly have 
attracted their attention in so very 
prominent a way!) — so that the mere 
expression ‘ the Greek * directly 
signified ‘the writing of the Greeks,' 
and Pd^ini found himself obliged to 
explain the formation of the term in 
a special rule. “The expression 
could only have become so very 
familiar through prolonged and fre- 
quent use — a thing conceivable and 
natural in Pdnini’s native district, 
in tiiose provinces of North-Western 
India which ^vere so long occupied 
by the Greeks. But this of conise 
presupposes ihata iciigthcncd period 
had intervened since the time of 
Alexander," — /. 6'^., iv. 89 (1857). 

Since the above was written 
the question of Pdniini’s date has 
been frequently discusied. Max 
Miiller first of all urged, and rightly, 
the real import of Hiuan Thsang's 
account, as opposed to my argument. 
Apart from this, however, I still firmly 
adhere to the reasoning in the text ; 
see /. iv. 87, v. 2 IF. To the 
vague external testimony we need 
hardly attach much importance. 
Pdnini’s vocabulary itself (cf. ya~ 
vandni) can alone yield us certain 
information. And it was upon this 
path that Goldstiicker proceeded in 
his Pdnim^ his place in Sanskrit 
Literature (September 1861) — a 
work distinguisiied in an eminent 



Pdnini’s work has continued to be the basis of gramma- 
tical research and the standard of usage in the language 
down even to the present time. Owing to its frequent 
obseurity it was early commented upon, and — a circum- 
stance to which there is no parallel elsewhere in the lite- 
rature — some of these earliest interpretations have come 
down to us. At their head stand the Parxbkdshds, or 
explanations of single rules, by unknown authors ; next 
come the VArttikas (from vrUt% ‘ explanation ’) of Katya- 
yana ; * and after these the MahdJbhdshya of Fatamjali. 
With regard to the date of Katyayana, the statement of 
Hiuan Tlisang, to the effect that 300 years after Buddha’s 
death, i.e., in B.c. 240, t " le doctewr Kia to yan na” lived at 
Tauiasa^ana in the Panjab, is by Bohtlingk referred to 
this Katyayana ; but when we remember that the same 
traveller assigns to Panini’s second existence a date so late 
as 500 years after Buddha, such a reference of course 
becomes highly precarious. Besides, the statement is in 

degree by truly profound iuvestiga- {Elem. S. Ind. PaL^ p. 96) : The 
tion of this aspect of the question as denoting of numbers by the letters 
well as of the literature immediately of the alphabet in their order (i=2)» 
bearing upon it. The conclusion he to which Qoldstiicker (Pd9»n^ p. 53) 
arrives at is that P^ini is older first drew attention, and which, ac- 
than Buddha, than the Prdti&tkhyas, cording to the Bhdshya, is peculiar 
than all the Yedic texts we possess, to Pdpini, occurs in his work only^ 
excepting the three Saiphitds of the and is “precisely similar to the 
Rik, Sdman, and Black Yajus — Greek and Semitic notation of 
older than any individual author in numerals by letters of the alphabet.” 
whatever field, with the single ex- If, further, the Greek accounts of 
ception of Ydska (p. 243). In May the confederation of the ’ 0 ^v 5 pdicai 
1861, before the separate publication and MaXXoi be correct ; if, tiiat is to 
of this work, which had previously say, their alliance first took place 
(Nov. i860) appeared as the preface through fear of Alexander, whereas 
to Goldstiieker’s photo-lithographed they liad up till then lived in con- 
edition of tlie Mdnava-Kalpa-Sdtra, stant enmity, then in all probability 
I endeavoured — and, as I believe, Apisali, and A fortioi^ Pd^ini also, 
successfully — in a detailed rejoinder would have to be set down as subse* 
in 7 , St, v, 1-176, to rebut these qnent to Alexander; see /. xiii. 
various deductions, point by point, 375 11. 

For the post- Buddhistic date of * Who there mentions several of 
Pdnini, compare in particular the these Paribhdshds. 
evidence adduced, pp. 136- 142, t That is, if we adopt the chroiio- 
which is excellently supplemented logy of the Southern Buddhists; but, 
by Biihler’s ' paper ou ^dkatdyana rather, only b.c. 60, since Kanishka, 
(1863, see note 229 above). To the whose flate, as we saw, is fixed by 
mention of the ‘Yavandni' has to coins for a.u. 40, is by Hiuan Thsaug 
be added a peculiar circumstance placed 400 years after Buddha’s 
which Burnell has recently noticed death. 


itself an extremely indefinite one, the “ docteur ” in qu^- 
tion not being described as a grammarian at all, but simply 
as a descendant of the Katya family.^^* Even admitting, 
however, that the reference really is to him, it would still 
be in conflict with the tradition — in itself, it is true, of no 
particular authority — of the Katha-sarit-sagara, which not 
only represents Katyayana as the contemporary of Pdnini, 
but identifies him with Varaiuchi, a minister of King 
Nanda, the father of Chandragupta {^avlpoKVTrroi), ac- 
cording to which, of course, he must have flourished about 
B.C. 350. As regards the age of the Mahabhashya,^ we 
have seen that the assertion of the Eaja-taramginf as to 
its introduction into Kashmir in the reign of Abhimanyu, 
the successor of Kanishka, i.e., between a.d. 40 and 65, is, 
for the reasons above assigned, in the meantime discre- 
dited. 28 « For the present, therefore, we are without infor- 
mation as to the date of those interpretations, just as we 
are regarding the date of Panini himself. But when once 
they are themselves in our hands, it will certainly be pos- 
sible to gather from their contents, by means of the great 
number of words they contain, a tolerably clear image of 
the time when they originated,^®'^ in the same way as we 

It is this only that has weight; to understand Patarpjali himself ; 
whereas no importance whatever is and the same applies to the name 
to be attached, as we have already Qo^ikdputra; sec on this /. v. 

seen (note 230), to the second exist- 155* 316, 3^3* 4 ^ 3 * 

ence of Pd^ini, On the various By no means ; see note 231. 

Kdtya-s, Kdtydyanas, at the time of On the basis of the lithographed 

the Bhdshya itself, for instance, see edition of the Mahdbhdshya, pub- 
/. xiii. 399. lished at Benares in 1872 by Mjd- 

* 23 # xhe name Pataipjali (we should rdmaAlstrin and lldlafeLstrin, with 
expect Pat®.) is cer ainly somehow Kaiyata’s commentary (of about the 
connected with that of the Pataqi- seventh century (?), see /. St,, v, 
chala Kdpya of the land of the Ma- 167), I have attempted in /. St., xiii. 
dras, who appears in the Ydjnaval- 293-502, to sketch such an outline, 
kiya-kanda of the Satap. Br. It The first section of the work, with 
occurs ^ain (see below, p. 237) as Kaiya^a, and Ndge^a's gloss, belong- 
the name of the author of the Yoga- ing to the eighteenth century, was 
Sutras. Patiimjali appears as name published so long ago as 1856 by 
of one of the prior births of Buddha Ballantyne. A photo-lithographed 
(No. 242, in Westergaard’s Cain- is^ue of the entire Bhdshya, pre- 
logi(8,p.39)- \u the Pravai'ddhydt/a, pared under Goldstiicker’s supervi- 
§ 9 (Yajnh-Paris.), the Patai^ijalis sion, at the expense of the Indian 
are clns.^ed ns belonging to the family Government, has recently appeared 
of Vi.svamitra, — According to later in London, in 3 vols. (vol, i., the 
accounts, by Gtmardiya, who is cited Bbdsbya ; vol. ii., Bhdshya with 

four times in the Bhdshya, we have Kaiya^a's Comm. ; vol. iii., Ndgoji- 



can even now attempt, although only in broad outline, a 
picture of the time of Panini* With regard to the 
latter, the condition of the text, in a critical point of view, 
forms a main difficulty. A few of the Sutras found in it are 
already notoriously acknowledged not to be Panini’s ; and 
there is the further peculiar circumstance, that, according 
to the scholiasts of the Calcutta edition, fully a third of 
the entire Siitras are not interpreted in the ]\Iahabhashya 
at all.f The question then arises whether this is merely 

bhatta’a Schol. on Kaiya^a). Gold- 
stiickcr, in his Pdnini^ ]>. 228 ff., 
muLuly upon the ground of the 

ment in the Bhdshva arunad Fa- 

^ * 

vanah Sdkctam'^ which he connects 

« 9 

with an exuedition of Menander 
(B.C. 144- 120) against Ayoilhyjt, 
fixed the date of the coin[»osition of 
the work for the period of this ex- 
pedition, or spocially for B.C. 140- 
120. The objections urged by ino 
(/. St.^ V. 151) against this assump- 
tion were, in the first place, mate- 
rially weakened by a remark of 
Kern*a in his Preface to the Bjrih. 
Saiph. of Vardha-Mihira, p. 37, ac- 
cording to which the statement in 
the same passage of the Bhdsliya 
“arwnad Yavano Mddhyamikdn^* is 
not necessarily to be referred to the 
Buddhistic school of this name, first 
founded by Niigilrjuna, but may 
possibly have reference to a trine 
called Mddliyamika, mentioned else- 
where. In the next place, Bhand ir- 
kar, in the Jnd. Antiq,^ i. 299 ff, 
ii. 59 ff"., attempted to prove that 
Patamjali wi'ote the particular sec- 
tion where he speaks in the above 
terms of Menander (who is issumcd, 
on Qoklstiicker’s authoriiy, to be 
meant by ‘Yavana’) between A.0, 
144 and 142, seeing that he there at 
the same time speaks of .sacrifices as 
%till being perfornn^d for Puslipa- 
mitra (a.d, 178-I42). In my reply 
ill /. xiii, 305 tf., I emphasised 
these points : fir^t, that the iden- 
tity of the Yavana and Menander is 
by no means made out ; next, that 
it docs not at all necessarilv follow 
from the passage in question that 

Pataipjali and Pushyamitra (this is 
the correct form) were contempora- 
ries; atid, lastly, that Pataipjali may 
possibly have found these examples 
already current, in which case they 
cannot bo used to prove anything 
with regard to him, but only with 
regard to his predecessors — it may 
be, even Pii^ini himself. And al- 
though I am now disposed, in pre- 
sence of Bhandarkar*s further objec- 
tions, to admit the historical bearing 
of the statement referring to Push- 
yamitra (but see Bohtlingk's opposite 
view in Z. Z>. M, (?., xxix. 183 ffi), 
still, with respect to all the examples 
here in question, I must lay special 
stress on the possibility, just men- 
tioned, that they may belong to the 
classof mdrdhdbhishikta illustrations 
{ibid,^ p. 315). Wo must for the 

present rest satisfierl, therefore (p. 
319), with placing the date of the 
composition of the BLdshya between 
B.C. 140 and A.D. 60, — a result which, 
considering the wretched state of the 
chronology of Indian literature gene- 
rally, is, despite its indefiniteuess, 
of no int an importance. 

* See L i. 141-157. [The 

beginning here nnicle came to a stand- 
still for want of the Mahabhdshya. ] 

+ In tile case of some of these, it 
is remarked tiiat they are not ex- 
plained here^ or e'.se not separately. 
Acquaintance with flui MahdV)hdshya 
itself will alone yield us satisfactory 
information on this point. [From 
Aufrecht’s accounts in bis CataX* 
Codd. Sansh, BibL Bodl.^ it appeared 
that of Pdnini^s 3983 rules only 1720 
are dii'eotiy discussed ; and Gold* 


because these particular Sutras are clear and intelligible of 
themselves, or whether we may not also here and there 
liave to suppose cases where the Sutras did not yet form 
part of the text at the time when this commentary was 
composed. The so-called gaiias, or lists of words which 
follow one and the same rule, and of which, unifor ml y^ 
only the initial word is cited in the text itself, are for the 
present wholly without critical authenticity, and carry no 
weight, therefore, in reference to Panini’s time. Some such 
lists must, of course, have been drawn up by Panini ; but 
whether those now extant are the same is very problema- 
tical : indeed, to some extent it is simply impossible that 
they can be so. Nay, such of them even as chance to be 
speci6ed singly in the Mahabhashya can, strictly speaking, 
prove nothing save for the time of this work itself.* Here, 
too, another wor(i of caution is necessary, — one which 
ought, indeed, to be superfluous, but unfortunately is not, 
as experience shows, — namely, that care must be taken 
not to attribute to words and examples occurring in the 
scholia, composed so recently as fifty years ago, of the 
Calcutta edition of Panini, any validity in reference to the 
time of Panini himself. No doubt such examples are 
usually derived from the Mahabhashya; but so long as 
this is not actually proved to be the case, we ai-e not at 
liberty at once to assume it; and besides, even when it is 
clear that they are actually borrowed from the Maha- 
bhashya, they are good only for the time of this work 
itself, but not for that of Panini.^ 

Htucker then showed that the Bhd- 
sliya is not so much a commentary 
on Pdniui as rather a defence of him 
against the unjust attacks of Kdtyd- 
yaua, the author of the vdrttikas ; 
see /. xiii. 297 ff,]. 

* See/. St.y i. 142, 143, 151. [xiii. 

298, 302, 329]. 

This is not quite strictly to the 
purpose. Max Muller was the first to 
point out that Pdniui's Sfitras were 
evidently from the beginning ac- 
companied by a definite interpreta- 
tion, whether oral or written, and 
that a considerable proportion of the 
examples in the Bhdsh^'a must have 
come from this source ; nay, the 

Bbdshya has itself a special name 
for these, such examples being 
styled miirdhdhlmhikta ; see /. Su, 
xiii. 315. Unfortunately, however, 
we have not the slightest clue (/. Str,, 
ii. 167) to enable us to decide, in 
individual instances, whether an ex- 
ample belongs to this class of tnurcUt, 

or not. — On the other hand — as re- 
sults not only from the data in the 
Rdja-taraipgini, but also, in parti, 
cular, from tlie statements at the 
closeof the second book of Hari's Vd- 
kyapadiya, which were first cited by 
Goldstiicker, and have lately been 
published in a corrected form by 
Kielhornin the fn(L Antiq.t iii. 285- 



In addition to Panini’s system, there grew up m course 
of time several other grammatical systems, having their 
own peculiar terminology ; and grammatical literature in 
general attained to a most remarkably rich and extensive 
development.^ The Tibetan Taudjur likewise embraces 

287— the Bhdsbya has undergone 
manifold vicissitudes of fortune, has 
been more than once viddUnna^ and 
arranged afresh, so that the possi- 
bility of considerable changes, ad<U- 
tions, and interpolations cannot be 
denied. Strictly speaking, there- 
fore, in each individual c;ise it re- 
mains, d priori^ uncertain whether 
the example is to be credited to 
Pataipjali himself, or to these sub- 
sequent remodellings of the text 
(or, reversely, to Patamjali^s pre- 
decessors, or even to Pinini himself); 
see /. St.f xiii. 320, 329 ; Ind. Antiq.y 
iv. 247. Kielhorn, it is true, in 
Ind. Aiitiq.y iv. 108, has protested 
very strongly against the view “ that 
at some time or other the text of 
the Mab^bhdshya had been lost, 
that it had to be reconstructed,'* 
&c. He will only “perhaps allow 
a break so far as regards its tradi- 
tional interpretation,” while we are 
for the time being bound “to re- 
gard the text of the Mahdbhdsbya 
as given by our MSS, to be the 
same as it existed about 2000 years 
ago.” Let us, then, await the ar- 
guments he has to offer in support 
of this ; for his protest alone will 
hardly suffice in the face of the 
statements on the subject that are 
still preserved in the tradition it- 
self. On three separate occasions, 
the epithets vipldvita, bhra^kta, 
vichkinna are employed of the 
work. And there is the further 
circumstance that, according to 
Burnell's testimony (Pref, to Vaft^a- 
Br^h., p. xxii. n.), the South Indian 
MSS. of the text appear to vary 
materially ; see also Burnell's Elem, 

S. Ind, Pal.y pp. 7, 32. 

239 VdJcyap^lya of Hari, the 
editing of which has now been 
undertaken by Kielhorn, connects 
itself specially with the Mahd- 

bhiiahya. — The Kdsiled *>f Vdmana, 
a direct commentary on Pilnuii, is 
at present being edited by Bdla- 
Sdstrin in the Benares Pai^ 4 ^, Ac- 
cording to him, it was composed in 
the thirteenth century, aa Gold- 
stiickerbad already hinted ; whereas 
the dale previously assigned to it, 
in accordance with Bohtlingk's view, 
was towards the eighth century ; 
see I. SLy V. 67 ; Cappeller'a Introd, 
to Vdmana’s KdvydlarpkdravrUtiy 
pp. vii,, viii. — To Aufrecht we owe 
an edition (Bonn, 1859) of Uj- 
jvaladatta's Commentary (of the 
thirteenth century or so) on the 
Unddi SuiraSy which are perhaps 
(see /. StT.y ii. 322) to be ascribed 
to SiLka^yana ; and Jul. Eggeling is 
engaged on an edition of the (?aria- 
ratna-mahodadhi of Vardham^na, 
—Of BhatJoji-Dlkshitiv's Siddhdnta* 
Icaumvdi (seventeenth century) we 
have now a new and good edition by 
Tdrdndtha V^chaspati (Calc., 1864- 
1865). — A highly meritorious work 
is the edition, with English version, 
&c,, of Varadardja's 
by J. R. Ballant\ ne (originally pub- 
lished at Mirzapore, 1849). — 6linta- 
nava’s Phii-SiUra^ were edited by 
Kielhorn in 1866 ; and to him wo 
also owe an excellent edition of 
Ndgoji-bbat^a’s Parihkdikendxi - 
kharay a work of the last century 
(Bombay, 186S-74), — Of gramma- 
tical systems which proceed on their 
own lines, departing from Pdnini, 
we have Vopadeva's Muydlia-bodhay 
of the thirteenth century, in an edi- 
tion, amongst others, by Bohtlingk 
(St. Petersburg, iS^j) : the Sdrasvata 
of Anubbdti - svardpdebdrya ap- 
peared at Bombay in 1861 in a 
lithographed edition; the Kdiantra 
of ^arvavarman, with Durgasiffha’s 
Commentary, is being edited by 
Eggeling in the BibL Indka (in 



a tolerable number of grammatical writings, and these for 
the-most part works that have been lost in India itself. ^<0 
As regards Lexicography — the second branch of the 
science of language — we have already pointed out its first 
beginnings in the Nighantus, collections of synonyms, &c., 
for the elucidation of the Vedic texts. But these were of 
a practical character, and wholly confined to the Veda : 
the need of collections towards a dictionary of Sanskrit, 
being, on the contrary, more a scientific one, was naturally 
only awakened at a much later time. Here, too, the earliest 
attempts in this direction have perished, and the work of 
Amara-siiiba, the oldest of the kind that has come dowm 
to us, appeals expressly in the introduction to other 
Tantras, from which it was itself compiled. Its com- 
mentators also expressly mention by name as such Tantras 
the Trikanda, the Utpalinf, and the works of Eabliasa, 
Katydyana, Vyadi,* and Vararuchi, the two latter as 
authorities for the gender of words, 

1874 it bad reached to iv, 4. 50). (1854, 1868); further, au edition 

The system of this grammar is of recently (1873) published at Bom- 
peculiar interest on this account, bay of Hetnachaiidra’s (accordi»»g to 
that a special connection a[»peurs to Bhdu Ddji, a.ix 1088-1172, see 
exist between it and the Piili gram- Journ. lionihay Br. JR, A, S,, ix, 224) 
fDjir of Kachchdyana, particularly in Prdkpt Grammar, which forms the 
regard to the terminology employed, eighth book of his great treatise on 
According to Buhler’s letter from Sanskrit grammar, the Sabddnu* 
Kashmir (pub. in /, 5 ^., xiv. 402 ff.), and lastly, Fischers valu- 

the Kdtanira is the special grammar able dis.sertation De Orammaticis 
of the Kdsiniuii*, and was there Pracriticis (1874), which supple- 
frequently commented upon in the meuts the accounts in Lassen’s In- 
I2th-l6th centuries. Of older siitut, LingufZ PracrUicGR (Bonn, 
grammatical texts, he has further 1837) with very important material, 
discovered the Pariihdshds of Vyd^i See Schiefner’s paper on the 

and Chandra, as also the Vcmia- logical and grammatical writings in 

and Skad-bkaskd-chandrikd the Tandjur, p. 25, from 
of the latter; likewise an Avyaya- de la Classe hist, pkil, de VAcad, 
vritti and Bhdiu-tararjiigi^i by Imp. dee Sc. de St. Petenbourg, iv., 
Kshira (Jaydpida’s preceptor), and a Nos. 18, 19 (1847), from which it 
very beautiful bhurja-'M.S. of the appe.ars that the Chandra- Vydka- 
Kusikd. In one of these MSS. this rana-Sutra, the Kaldpa Sdira, and 
]:ist-named work is ascribed to the Saran'Citi- Vydkarana-Svtra, in 
Vilmana and Jay^litya (Jaydpida?), particular, are represented there, 
whereby the earlier view as to its * A Vyddi is cited in the llik- 
date again gaiii.s credit, — Fora list Prdti^dkliya [and in Goldstiicker’s 
of “ Sansciit-Grammars,” &c,, see Pdiiini he plays a very special part. 
Colebrooke’s Alisc. Pss., ii. 38 ff., The Saipgrahaj several times men- 
ed. Cowell. — It remains still to tioned in the Bhashya, and there 
mention here Cowell’s edition of assigned to Bdkshdyanay is by Nii- 
the PrdlpUa-praJidsa of Vararuchi nelia, — who describes it as a work in 



The question now is to detei’inine the age of Amara* 
sinha — a question which, in the first instance, exactly 
coincides with the one already discussed as to the date of 
Kalidasa, for, like the latter, Ainara is specified by tradi- 
tion among the ‘ nine gems ’ of the court of Vikrama — 
that Vikrama whom Indian tradition identifies with king 
Bhoja (a.d. 1050), but to whom European criticism has 
assigned tiie date b.c. 56, because — an era bearing this name 
commences with that year. The utter groundlessness of 
this last assumption has been already exposed in the 
case of Kdlidasa, though we do not here, any more than 
there, enter the lists in defence of the Indian tradition, 
Tliis tradition is distinctly contradicted, in particular, by 
a temple-inscription discovered at Buddhagaya, which is 
dated 1005 of the era of Vikramaditya (ie., a.d. 949), 
and in which Amara- deva is mentioned as one of 
the ‘nine jewels’ of Vikraraa’s court, and as builder 
of the temple in question. This inscription had been 
turned to special account by European criticism in sup- 
port of its view ; but Holtzmaun’s researches (op. oil., 
pp. 26-32) have made it not improbable that it was put 
there in the same age in which Amara-sinha’s dictionary 
was written, seeing that both give expression to precisely 
the same form of belief, a combination, namely, of Bud- 
dhism with Vishnuism — a form of faith which cannot 
possibly have continued very long in vogue, resting as it 
does on a union of directly opposite systems. At all 
events, inscription and dictionary cannot lie so much as 
1000 years apart, — that is a .sheer impossibility. Unfor- 
tunately tins inscription is not known to us in the original, 
and has only survived in the English translation made by 
Ch. Wilkins in 1785 (a time when he can hardly have 
been very proficient in Sanskrit !) : the text itself is lost. 

100,000 ilokoi — attributed to a 

meaning in all likelihood the 
same Vyddi whi) is elsewhere men- 
tioned ill the Blidshya. Now upon 
the strength of this, Goldstiicker 
sets up a direct relation of kin- 
ship between Pdniiii, who is desig- 
nated Ddkshiputra in the Bhdshya, 
and this (Vyddi) Ddkshdyana ; only 
tbe former must be least two 

generations ” prior to the latter. 
And on this he grounds a specific 
** historical argument*' for the de- 
tonuination of IMnini*s date ; for if 
Vyiidi, lYinini's collat- 
erally, is cited in the Ilik-Pr,, then 
of course this work must be latei 
than Pdnini ; see against all this i. 

V. 41, 127-133, xiii, 401]. 

date OF AMARASINHA. 239 

with the stone on which it was incised. That the dic- 
tionary belongs, in any case, to a period considerably later 
than the first century b.c. — the date commonly assigned 
to it — is sufficiently indicated by data furnislied by the 
work itself. For, in the first place, it enumerates the 
signs of the zodiac, which were unquestionably borro'^ed 
by the Hindus from the Greeks ; and, according to Le- 
tronne’s investigations, the completion of the zodiac did 
not take place among the Greeks themselves before the first 
century a.d. ; so that, of course, it cannot have become 
known to the Hindus till one or several centuries later. 
Again, in the Amara-kosha, the lunar mansions are enu- 
merated in their new order, the fixing of which was due 
to the fresh life infused into Indian astronomy under 
Greek influence, the exact date being uncertain, but hardly 
earlier than a.d. 400. Lastly, the word dindra occin-s 
here,* which, as pointed out by Prinsep, is simply ti e 
Latin denarius (see Lassen, L AK., ii. 261, 348). The use 
of the term tantra in the sense of ‘ text-book ’ may perhaps 
also be cited in this connection, as it belongs only to a 
definite period, wdiich is probaldy the fifth or sixth cen- 
tury, the Hindds who emigrated to Java having taken the 
w'ord with them in tliis sense.^^^ — ^All this, of course, yields 
us no direct date. If it be correct, as stated by Jteinaud 
{M 4 m. mr I’Inde, p. 114), that there existed a Chinese 
translation of the work, “redigde au vi® si^cle,” this 
would give us something tolerably definite to go by. But 
Stan. Julien does not, it would seem, in the passage cited 
by Reinaud as his authority, express himseJf in quite such 
definite terms; as he merely speaks of the "traduction 
chinoise de rAmarakocha, qui paralt avoir 6 t 6 publide 
. . . ” : f nor are the positive grounds he adduces in sup- 
port of this view directly before us, so that we might test 

* It also occiir.s in the Paheha- 5, cited by Colebrooke, Misc. Rss., 
tantra, in a legend of Buddhistic i. 314I (339^) ; Gildemeister in 
origin.— I may here also remark in Z.D. M. O., xxviii. 697. 
passing, that the word dramma, i.e., f The meaning of parattre, how- 

is employed in the twelfth ever, is doubtful ; it can .signify 
century by Bhrlskara, aswellasiniii- either ‘seem’ or ‘be clear’ (.ic- 
Ecrjptions [cf. i?. D. A/. vi. 420]. cording to all 'evidence),— in tlie 
*■*’ Of special interest also is the latter sense like the Latin apparcre, 
Ar.abico- Persian word pilu ior ele- and the English 'appear,' being in- 
phant ; cf. Kunidrila on Jaim., i, 3. deed derived from apparescert. 


them. Of the Tibetan translation of the work in the 
Tandjur no particulars are known. How great the difficulty 
is of arriving at any sort of decision in tliis matter is 
shown by the example of one of the most celebrated of 
living Indianists, H. H. Wilson. For while, in the pre- 
face to the first edition of his Sanskrit Dictionary (1819), 
he rather inclined to the view that Amara-sinha flourished 
in the fifth century a.d., and while again, in the second 
edition of the work (1832), under the word ‘Vararuchi,’ 
he expressly transfers the ‘ nine gems ’ to the court of 
Bhoja (A.D. 1050), — in the preface (p. vi.) to his transla- 
tion of the Vishnu-Purana (1840), on the contrary, he 
makes Amara-sinha live “ in the century prior to Chris- 
tianity ! ” — But, independently of all that has hitherto 
been advanced, the mere circumstance that the other 
dictionaries we possess, besides the Amara-kosha, all 
belong to the eleventh, twelfth, and following centuries, 
constrains us to come to a conclusion similar to that 
which was forced upon us in regard to the drama — 
namely, that as the Amara-kosha is in no way specifically 
distinguished in character from these other productions, 
so it cannot be separated from them by a very wide inter- 
val of time. (Holtzmann, p. 26.)^^ 

Besides the dictionaries, we have also to mention a class 
of lexical works quite peculiar to the Hindds — namely, 
the lists of roots styled Dhdtu-pdrdyanas or Dhdhi- 
pdthas : * though these belong ratlier to the province of 
grammar. They are written partly in prose and partly in 
Uokas. The latter is the form adopted in all the dic- 
tionaries, and it supplies, of course, a strong guarantee of 
the integrity of the text, the interlacing of the different 
verses rendering interpolation well-nigh impossible.f 

Since the above was written, and by Aufrecht (London, i86l) of 
nothing new has appeared on tins Huldyudha’s Ahhidhdna-ratna-mdldf 
question. To the editions of the belonging to about the end of the 
Amara-koslia then already pub- eleventh century, A Pdli redaction 
hshed, tliose, namely, of Colehrooke of the Amara-kosha by Moggalldnii 
(1808) find of Loiseleiir Deslong- belongs to the close of the twelfth 
champs (Paris, 1839, 1845), various century ; see /. Str.^ ii, 330. 
new ones have since been added in * For the literature of these, see 
India, Of other vocabularies wo Westergaard^s preface to his ex- 
tnay mention the editions, by Boht- cellent Radices Lingua: Sanscritos 
lingk and Rieu (1847) of Hema- (Bonn, 1841). 

Chandra’s Ahhidhdna ~ chinidmaniy + See Holtzmann, op. cit.y p, 17, 

33 * 


Lastly, as a third phase of the science of language, we 
have to consider Metric, Poetics, and Rhetoric. 

With the beginnings of Prosody we have already become 
acquainted in connection with the Veda (see p. 23). The 
treatise ascribed to Pingala even appears as an appendage 
to the Veda itself, however little claim it has to such a 
position, specifying as it does the most highly elaborated 
metres, such as were only used in later times (see p. 60). 
The tradition which identifies Pingala with Patamjali, the 
author of the Mahabhashya and the Yoga-^astra, must 
answer for itself ; for us there exists no cogent reason for 
accepting it.^^ The other existing treatises on metre are 
likewise all modern: they superseded the more ancient 
works ; and the same is the case, in an equal degree, with 
^e writings on poetics and rhetoric. Of the Alamkdror 
Sdstm of Bharata, which is often cited as the leading 
authority on these subjects, only the few quoted passages 
would seem to have survived, although, according to one 
commentary,* the work was itself but an extract from the 
Agm-Purana. A. W, von Schlegel in his B^exions sur 
V Etude des Langues Asiat., p. 1 1 1, speaks of a manuscript, 
preserved in Paris, of the Sdhiiya-darpana, another leading 
work on this subject, as dated* 949, i.e., A.D. 1027 ; and 
til is, if coiTect, would naturally be of the highest import- 
ance for the age of the works therein quoted. But d priori 
I am firmly persuaded that this statement rests on a mis- 
take or misunderstanding;^ for the oldest manuscripts 
with which I have had any opportunity of becoming ac- 
quainted are, as already mentioned (p. 182), not so much 

Cf. on this I, viii. 158 ff. the banks of the Brahmaputra ; see 
* See my CataLof the Samk. MSS, Jagan-mohana-sarman in the pre* 
in the Dcrl. Lib., p. 227, [Respect- face to his edition of the drama 
ing the Nd(ya ~ jSdetra of Bharata Cha^da-Katt^ika, p. 2. It has al- 
fiiller information was first supplied ready been edited several times in 
by Hull in his edition of the Daia- India, amongst others by lloer in 
7 uipa (1865), at the close of which the Bibl. Indica (1851, vol, x.). 
he has given the text of four chap- Ballantyne's translation, is un- 
ters of the M’ork (18-20, 34); see fortunatedy not yet entirely printed, 
also W. Heyniann’s account of it in and reaches only to Rule 575; for 
the Gdttinger Od. Amcigen, 1874, p. the close of the work, however, from 
86 fF.] Rule 631, we have a translation by 

The Sdhitya-darpana was only Pramadd DdsaMitra, which appeared 
composed towards the middle of the in the Pai^ 4 it, Nos, 4-28. 
fifteenth century in £. Bengal, on 

23 * 


as 500 years old, and it will be difficult to find any of a 
yet greater age. — For the rest, in the field of rhetoric and 
poetics, the Hindii mind, so fertile in nice distinctions, has 
had free scope, and has put forth all its power, not seldom 
in an extremely subtle and ingenious fashion.^*® 

We now come to the consideration of Philosoiffiy, as the 
second branch of the scientific Sanskrit literature. 

I rank it here after the science of language, not because 
I regard it as of later origin, but because the existing 
text-books of the philosophical systems seem to me to be 
posterior to the text-book of grammar, the Sdtra of Panini, 
since they appear, to some extent, to presuppose the exist- 
ence of Upanishads, writings which, in their extant form, 

manifestly belong to a very late period, comparatively 

Tlie beginnings of philosophical speculation go back, 
as we have already more than once seen (see espe- 
cially pp. 26, 27), to a very remote age. Even in the 
Samhita of the RUc, although only in its later portions, 
we find hymns that bespeak a high degree of reflection. 
Here, too, as with all other peoples, it. was especially tlie 
question as to the origin of the world that more imme- 

Dan^in’s Kdvyddaria, of the example, .adopted the Vaidaibli.a-ritij 
Bixth century, and Dhaiiaipjay.a’s see Biihler, Vikranidnka-char., i. 9. 
Daia~rdpa, of the middle of the tenth — Vdmana’s Kdvydl'iijikdra-vrUti ha* 
century, have been puldished in the lately been edited byCappcller(Jena, 
Bill. Indica, the former edited by 1875), and belongs, he tliinks, to the 
Premachandra Tarkavdt'Wa (1863), twelfth century. Mammata’sA’dvya- 
the latter by Hail (1865). From prakdda, several times published in 
these we learn, amongst other tilings, Indi.a, belongs, in Biihler’s opinion, 
the very important fact (hat in to the same date, since Mammapt, 
Dan^in’s day two definite, provin- according to Hall (/ntrod. to Fdsam., 
daily distinguished, varieties of p. 55), was the maternal uncle of 
style (Hli) were already recognised, the author of the Kaishadhiva ; see 
namely, the Oauda style and the Buhlcr in /owm. J?oni6. Zfr. 7 ?. 5,, 

Vaidarbka style, to which in course x. 37, my 1 . .Str., i. 356, and my Essay 
of time four others, (he Pdflchdli, on Hdla’s Sapta-iaiaka, p. ii. Cf. 
Ldti, Avantikd, and Hdgadhi, were here also Aufrecht’s account of the 
added ; cf. my Essay on the Bdmd- Sarasvati - kanthdbhafana (note 220 
yana, p. 76, and I. St., xiv. 65 ff. above). — A rich accession to the 
Bdna passes for the special repre- Alaipkdra literature also will result 
sentative of the Pahchdla style ; sec from Biililer’s journey to Kashmir : 
Aufrecht in Z. D. M. (?., xxvii, 93 ; the works range from the ninth to 
whereas the Kd.<mira Bilhana, for the thirteenth century. 


diately gave rise to philosophical contemplation. The 
mystery of existence, of being, and of life forces itself 
directly upon the soul, and along with this comes the 
question, how the riddle is to be solved, and what is its 
cause. The idea that most readily presents itself, and 

in fact, everywhere recognisable as the 
earliest one, is that of an eternal matter, a chaotic mass, 
into which order and system are gradually introduced, 
whether — and here we have two distinct views, each of 
which has its intrinsic warrant, and which must therefore 
have been early opposed to each other — by virtue of an 
indwelling capacity of development, or by impulse from 
without, whereby of course an object or Being existing 
outside of this chaotic mass is eo ipso postulated. This 
point reached, the idea is then a very natural one to 
regard this Being, whence the impulse proceeds, as higher 
and more exalted than the primary chaotic matter itself ; 
and, as speculation advances, this primary matter continues 
to sink to a more and more subordinate position, till at 
length its very existence appears as dependent rrpon the 
will of this Beirrg, and so the idea of a creation ai’ises. 
The steps of this gradation may actually be followed with 
tolerable distinctness in the Vedic texts. In the more 
ancient portions the notion everywhere still is that the 
worlds were but ‘ fixed,’ ‘ arranged ’ (stalhita, skabhita *), by 
the aid of the metres (it is thus that the harmony of the 
universe is explained) ; only at a later stage is the idea 
developed of their sarjana, * emission ’ or creation. As 
time goes on, the creative Being is conceived as more 
and more transcendental and supernatural, so that as a 
means of communication between him and the real uni- 
verse intermediate grades of beings, demiurges, are required, 
by classifying and systematising whom speculation strives 

* It is interesting that the Ger- of the word grown up independently 
man word schaffen is derived from with both peoples? I'erhaps I lie 
this root stabh, tkabh, ‘ e8t<ablish ‘yawning gulf’ of chaos, ‘gabn- 
originally therefore it had not the narfi gambhirarp,,' ' ginunga gap,' 
sense in which it is now used. The might also be instanced as a similar 
idea of the ‘establishment,’ ‘ar- primitive notion ? [The connection 
rangement ’ of the worlds may pos- here supposed between schaffen and 
sibly therefore date from the epocli s^abh, skabh, ffKgirrdv, is very ques* 
when leutons and Indians still tionable ; the word seems rather to 
dwelt together : or has the same use belong to schaben, scabere, aK&iTTeii’,^ 



to introduce order, but naturally only with the result ol 
producing greater confusion. We have thus three dis- 
tinct views as to the origin of the world — that of its 
‘ development,’ that of its ‘ arrangement,’ and that of its 
‘ creation.’ The two former agree in so far as the theory 
of development requires an ‘ arranger ’ also ; they are, 
however, sufficiently distinguished by the circumstance 
that in the former this Power is regarded as the first pro- 
duction of the capacity of development residing in primary 
matter; in the latter, on the contrary, as an independent 
Being existing outside of it. The theory of a creation 
starts generally with a desire on the part of the Creator to 
be no longer alone, the expression of which desire is imme- 
diately followed by the emanation itself. Either it is a 
female being that first proceeds from the Creator, in con- 
nection with whom, by a process of begetting,* he then 
accomplishes the further work of creation ; or it is the 
breath of life that first of all emanates, and in its turn 
produces all the rest ; or again, the mere expression of the 
desire itself involves creation, vdch or speech here appear- 
ing as its immediate source ; or the process is conceived in 
a variety of other ways. The notion that the world is but 
Illusion only belongs to the latest phase of this emanation 
theory. — It is impossible at present to attempt even an 
approximate sketch of the gradual growth of these three 
different theories into complete philosophical systems; 
the Brdhmanas and Upanishads must first be thoroughly 
studied. Nor until this has been done will it be possible 
to decide the question whether for the beginnings of Greek 
philosophy any connection with Hindd speculation can be 
established — with reference to the five elements in par- 
ticular,f a point which for the present is doubtful.J I 
have ^ready stated generally (p. 29) the reasons which 
lead me to assign a comparatively late date to the existing 
text-books (Sutras) of the Hindii philosophical systems.^® 

* B}' incest therefore : the story 
in Megasthenes of the incest of the 
Indian Meraklcs with his daughter 
refers to this. 

t And the doctrine of metempsy- 
ehosis ! 

i See Max Muller in Z. D. M, (?,, 

vi. 18 fF. [Cf. my review of Schlii- 
ter’fi hook, Aristolelcs' Metapliysik 
fine Tockitr der Sdnlcliyahhre in Lit, 
Cent, Bl,, 1874, p. 294.] 

Cf. CoweirsnotetoColehrooke’s 
Misc. EsS; i. 354. “The Sutras aa 
we have them cannot be the original 

Philosophy t the samkhya system. 235 

Unfortunately we are not yet in possession of the treatises 
themselves ; * and for what follows I have had to depend 
mainly upon Colebrooke’s Essays on the subject.^'^ 

The most ancient philosophical system appears to be the 
Sdmkhya theory, which sets up a primordial matter as the 
basis of the universe, out of wliich the latter is by succes- 
sive stages evolved. The word Sdmkhya itscdf occurs first 
in the later Upanishads; t while in the earlier Upanishads 
and Bralimanas the doctrines afterwards belonging to the 
Samkhya system still appear in incongruous combination 
with doctrines of opposite tendency, and are cited along 
with these under the equivalent designations of Mimdhsd 
(V man, speculation), Adeia (doctrine), Upanishad (sit- 
ting), &c. I am especially induced to regard the Samkhya 
as the oldest of the existing systems by the names of those 
who are mentioned as its leading representatives : Kapila, 
Pancha^ikha, and Asuii. The last of these names occurs 
very frequently in the ^atapatha-Brahmana as that of an 
important authority for sacrificial ritual and the like, and 
also in the lists of teachers contained in that work (namely, 

form of the doctrineg of the several K. M. Banerjea, Barth. St. Hilaire. 
Bchools. They arc rather a recapi- In the BihL Indica and the Iknarca 
tulation of a series of preceding de- Pundit many higlily important edi- 
Telopmciits which had gone on in tions of texts have appeared, and we 
the works of successive tcacliens.*' arc now in possession of the Sutras 
♦Onlytwoof themhavethusfarap- of all the six systems, together with 
peared in India; but of tiie edition of their leading commentaries, three 
the Veddnta-Sdtra with Sarpkara’s of them in translation also. See 
commentary I have not yet been able also in particular the Sai'va-daHana* 
to gee a copy ; only the edition of the samgraha of Mddhava in the^ BihL 
Nydya-Stitra is known to me. The hid, (1853-58), edited by lavara- 
whole of these texts are at present chandra Yidydsdgara, and Hairs 
being edited in India by Dr. Bal- Bibliographical Index to the Ind, 
lantyne, with English translation. Phil. SysL (1859). 

[These editions, entitled Apho 7 'isms t Of the Taittirlya and Atharvan, 
* of the Sdnkhya, Veddnta^ Yoga^ &c., as also in the fourteenth book of the 
extend to all the six systems, each Nirukti, and in the Bhagavad-gUd. 
aiUrrt being regularly followed by As regards its sense, the term is 
translation and commentary; but rather obscure and not very signi- 
unfortunately only a few numbers of ficant ; can its use have been in any 
each have appeared.] way influenced and determined by 

In the new edition of Cole- its association wdth the doctrine of 
brockets Essays (1873), tliese are &ikya? or lias it reference purely 
accompanied wntli excellent notes by and solely to the twenty-five prin- 
Professor Cowell, Since the above ciples? [The latter is really the 
was written, much new material has case; see /. ix. 17 fl'. Kapilas 
been added by the labours of Roer, Bal- tattva-5«???A7<y«^i, Bhdg. Pur,, iii 

lantye, Hall,"Cowell, Muller, Gough, 25. i.] 



as disciple of Yajnavalkya, and as only one or a few gene- 
rations prior to Yaska). Kapila, again, can hardly be 
unconnected with the Kapya Patamchala whom we find 
mentioned in the Yajnavalki'ya- Iv cl 1^1 ) a. t 1 li a*^l 

Aranyaka as a zealous representative of the Bralmianical 
learning. Kapila, too — what is not recorded of any other 
of these reputed authors of Sdtras — was himself afterwards 
elevated to divine rank: and in this quality we meet with 
him, for example, in the Sveta^vataropanishad.* But it is 
above all the close connection of his tenets withBuddhism^'*** 
— the legends of which, moreover, uniformly speak both 
of him and of Panchaiikha as long anterior to Buddha— 
which proves conclusively that the system bearing his name 
is to be regarded as the oldest.^® The question as to the 
possible date of Kapila is thus closely linked with that of 
the origin of Buddhism generally, a point to which we 
shall revert in the sequel, in connection with our survey 
of the Buddhistic literature. Two other leading doctors 
of the Sarnkliya school as .such appear towards the sixth 
century of our era, l^vara-Krishna and Gaudapada: the 
former (according to Colebrooke, i. 1 03) is expressly stated 

* In the invocations of the Pitpis explanation of this, when he says 
which(8eeabovc,pp. 55,56)form part that the existing Stitras of Kapila 
of the ordinary ceremonial, Kapila, are *‘of later date, posterior, not 
Asuri, Paiichaiikha (and with them anterior, to Buddha.’^ On the swl)* 
a Vo^ha or Bo^ha), uniformly oc- jeet itself, seo specially /. St,y iii. 
cupy a veiy honourable place in later 132, 133. 

times ; whereas notice is more rarely In the sacred texts of the 

taken of the remaining authors of Jainas also, not only is the Satihi^ 
philosophical Siitras, &c. This too tanta {Skashti-tantra, explained by 
proves that the former are more the comm, as Kapila- Sdatr a) speci- 
ancient than the latter, fic<l along with the four Yedas 

This relates, according to Wil- and tiicir Aftgas, hut In another 
son, to the community of tlic fnnda- passage the name Kdvila appears 
mentalpropositionsof both in regard along with it, tlie only other Brah- 
to “ the eternity of matter, tlic priii- xnanical system hero mentioned he- 
ciplcs of things, and the final extinc- ingthc Baisesiya (Vai^eshika). (The 
tion” (\Yilson, Works, ii. 346, cd. order in wliicli they are given is 
Rost,). In opposition to tliis, it is Baisesiya, Buddha -sdsana, Kdvila, 
true, Max Miillerexpressly denies any Logdya^a, Sa^thi-tanta.) So also in 
special connection whatever between a similar enumeration in the Lalita- 
Knpila’s system, as embodied in the vistara, after Sdmkhya Yoga, only 
Sutras, and Buddhist metaphysics Vaij^eshika is further specified. See 
(Chips fi'om a Gc'rman Workshop, i. my paper on tlie Bhagavati of the 
226, 1870) ; yet he himself imme- Jainas, ii, 246-248. 
diately afterwards gives the correct 


to be the author of the existing Samkhya-Siitra, while the 
latter embodied its doctrine in several Upauishads.^® 
(Connected wdth the Sdipkliya school, as a furtlier deve* 
lojtiiient of it, is the Yoga system of raianijali,'-^'’^ wlnise 
name describes him as in all probability a descendant of 
Llie Ka])ya Putamchala of the Vrihad-Aranyaka, Along 
with him (or prior to him) Yiljuavalkya, the leading 
auiliorityof the ^atapatha-lirahmana, is also regarded as a 
main originator of the Yoga doctrine, but tliis only in later 
writings.* Whether Patamjali is to be identilied with the 

iiw The Stitraa of ILipUu, the eo- 

callod Sdriilcfiya-pravachaiia^VLTt uow 
litililishcdy with the commeutory of 

ViJmiua*hhikHhu iu the BibL Ind.^ 
edited by Hall (1854-56) ; a trana- 
luiloii by Baliant^Mio alno appeared 
in the aame aeries, 1862-65. In 
Ida preface to the S. Prav„ as well 
as in the preface some years later 
to his edition of Vijndna-bhikahu’a 
SdrjiJch ya-sdra, Hull gives a special 
account, with which, however, be ia 
hiniaolf by no means aatisficd (sec his 
note to Wilson’s Vialinu-Pur.iiii. 301 ), 
of Kapila and the lending works cx* 
Unt of li»e Sdtpkhya systein. He rc- 
gaids the Siinikliya-pravachunu as a 
very late f>roiiuction, widch may here 
and tliercevon *‘bo auspccied of occa* 
sjonal obligation to the Ktlrikds of 
Isvarakfisb^a” (Siipkbya-sjira, Pre* 
luce, p. 12), Of course this does not 
atlcet cither the antiquity of Kupilu 
himself or hU alleged connection 
with the Sdqikliya" (p. 20). Cowell, 
too iColcbrooke, J/#>c. i, 354, 
note), rcuards the Sdqikhyu school 
iiself *‘aa one of the earliest,” while 
t hp .Sdtras, on the contrary, are of 
lute origin, inasmuch as they not 
only ‘'refer distinctly to Vedduta 
texts/* but also “expressly mention 
tlie Viii^eshika in i. 25, v. 85 ; for 
the Nydyii, cf. v. 27, 86. and for 
the Yoga, i. 90/’ Besides the Vai- 
HCfihikaa (i. 25), only Punchadikha 
(v. 32, vi. 68) and Sanamlurnlchdrya 
{vi. 69) art! uctimlly mentioned by 
name. An interesting detail ia the 
o]»pusin'rof the names Srughna and 

Pdtaliputra (i. 28) as an ilhistnitioii 
of separate loculiiy (similarly in the 
Mahdbhdshya, see 7 . xiii. 378). 

The Yoga-Sdiru aaoribed to 
Putaqijali (likewise called Sdrpkhya- 

? >ravadiana - Sd£m), with extracts 
rom Bhoia's commentary upon it, 
was edited, text wdtii translation, to 
the extent of one-half, by Ballantyne 
in his Aphoi'Umi ; the second half 
appeared in the Pandit, Nob. 28-6S, 
edited by Ooviada-deva-Aiatrin. — 
An Xryd-paflchdilti by Seaiia (whom 
the editor identifies with Patutpjali), 
ill wiiicli the relation of prnkpiti and 
junauAais elucidated in a Vaish^iiva 
Kcnse, was edited by Bdlst^dslrin in 
No. 56 of tlic Paptjiit; there exists 
also a daiva adaptation of itby Abhi- 
navugupia ; eeo Z, 1>, M. ff,, xxvii. 
167. Acconling to Biihler's letter 
(/. SL^ xiv, 402 ft’.), Abhiiittvagupta 
is supposed to liavcdied in a.u. 982 ; 
but Biililer has not himself verified 
llie date, which is stated to occur in 
the hymn written by Abhinava on 
hia deathbed. 

* Particularly in the twelfth book 
of the Mabd-Bhdratn, where, with 
Jnn.aka, he is virtually described as 
a Biuldbist teacher, the chief out* 
ward badge of thcHc teachers being 
precisely tiio Jed^hdya - dUdrannin 
maundyuvi (M.-Bh., xii. 11898, 566). 

It appearH, at all events, Iroiu ihe 
Yiljnavulkiya-kiindu tliat botli gave 
a powerful impulBc to the pruc 4 icc 
of religi(»us nuMidicanoy : iu the 
Atharvopunishiids, too, this ia clearly 
shown (see p. 163). [Iu the Yitjua* 



author of the Maliabhushya remains for the present a ques- 
tion. The word yoga iu the sense of ‘.union with the 
Supreme Being/ ‘ absorption therein by virtue of medita- 
tion/ first occurs in the later Upanishads, especially in the 
tenth book of the Taittiriya-Aranyaka and in the Kathako- 
panishad, where this very doctrine is itself enunciated.^®^ 
As there presented, it seems to rest substantially upon a 
dualism, that is, upon the ‘arrangement’ theory of the 
universe ; in this sense, however, that in the Kathakopani- 
shad at least, 'purusha, primeval soul, is conceived as exist- 
ing prior to avydkta, prhnordial matter, from the union of 
which two principles the malidn dtmd, or spirit of life, 
is evolved. For the rest, its si)ecial connection with the 
Samkhya system is still, in its details, somewhat obscure, 
however well atteslcd it is externally by the constant 
juxtaposition of ‘ Samkhya- Yoga/ generally as a com- 
pound. Both systems appear, in particular, to have coun- 
tenanced a confounding of their purunha, iivara with the 
chief divinities of the popular religion, Rudra and Krishna, 
as may be gathered from the Sveta^vataropanishad,^^“ the 
Bhagavad-gita, and many passages in the twelfth book of 
the Maha-Bliarata.* One very peculiar side of the Yoga 

valkya-Smriti, iii, 1 10, Y* describes of view of literary chronology no 
himself ostensibly as the author of forcible objection can be brought 
the Ara^yaka as well as of the Yoga- against this ; some of the points, 
Sdstra.] too, which he urges are not without 

It is in these and similar Upa- importance ; but on the whole he 
nishads, as also in Mann's Dharma- has greatly over-estimated the scope 
Sdstra (cf. Johantgen’s Kssay on the of his argument : the question is 
Law-Book of Maiiu, 1863), that we still subjudice, 

have to look for the earliest germs * More particularly with regard 
and records of the atheistic Sdqikhy a to the Bhdgavata, Pdfiebardtra, and 
an<l the deistic Yoga systems. Pd 4 uputa doctrines, [A Sdtra of 

ii 52 » jjj jjjy oil the 6vetdava- the Pdhcluiratra school, that, namely, 

taropanishad 1 had to leave the point of Sdndilya (ed. by Ballantyne in the 
undet'-rmined whetlier, for the li/bl, Jiidica, 1861), is apparently 
period to which this work belongs, mentioned by Samkara, Veddnta-S. 
and specially as regards tbe mono- Bh. ii, 2. 45. It rests, seemingly, 
Iheistic Yoga system it embodies, an upon the Bhagavad-gitd, and lays 
acquaintance with the corresponding special stress upon faith in the Su- 
doctrines of Christianity is to bo premeBeing(6/raiiiri#rarc); see on it 
assumed or not ; see L St., i. 423. Cowell’s note in Colebrooke’s Misc, 
Lorinser, outlie other hand, in his .£'55., 1.438. OnthedeYelopinentofthe 
tianslation of the Bhagavad-gitd doctiineof Wilson surmises 

(Breslau, 1869), unreservedly as- Christian conceptions to have had 
sumes such an acquaintance in the some influence ; see my paper on the 
case of this poem. From the point Rdm. Tdp. Up., pp. 277, 360, Tha 


doctrine — and one which was more and more exclusively 
developed as time went on — is the Yoga practice ; that is, 
the outward means, such as penances, mortifications, and 
the like, whereby this absorption into the supreme God- 
head is sought to be attained. In the epic poems, but 
especially in the Atharvopanishads, we encounter it in full 
force : Panini, too, teaches the formation of the term yogin. 

The most flourishing epoch of the Samkhya-Yoga be- 
longs most probably to the first centuries of our era, the 
influence it exercised upon the development of Gnosticism 
in Asia Minor being unmistakable ; while further, both 
through this channel and afterwards directly also, it had 
an important influence upon the growth of the philo- 
sophy.* Albfnini translated Patamjali’s work into Arabic 
at the beginning of the eleventh century, and also, it would 
appear, the Sarnkhya-Stitra.f though the information we 
have as to the contents of these works does not harmonise 
with the Sanskrit originals. 

The doctrines of the two Mvmdnsds appear to have been 
reduced to their present systematic shape at a later period 
than those of the Samkhya ; and, as indicated by their 
respective names, in the case of the Fdrva- Mimdnsd earlier 
than in the case of the Uttara-Mimdnsd. The essential 
purpose of both Miinaiisas is to bring the doctrines enun- 
ciated in the Brahmanas or sacred revelation into harmony 
and accord with each other. Precepts relating to practice 
form the subject of the Pdrva-Mimansa, which is hence also 
styled Karma - Mimdmd ; while doctrines regarding the 
essence of the creative principle and its relation to the 

NdradivPaiichartltra (edited in Bibk very questionable. Besides, as we 
Ind. by K. M, Banerj* a, 1861-65) shall presently see, in both the 
aritualjnotaphilosophicaljVaish^ava Miindnsd-SMras teachers are repeat- 
text-book,] edly cited who are known to us from 

* See [Lassen, /. iliT., iii. 379 fif.] the Vedic Siiitra literature; while 
Gildemeister, Script, Arab, de rch. nothing of the kind occurs in either 
Ind.y p. li2fF, of the Sdipkhya-pravachana-Sutras. 

t Reinaud in the Jotim, Aciat., This does not of course touch the 
1844, pp. 121-124; H. M. Elliot, point of the higher antiquity of the 
liibl. Index to the Hist, of Mnham- doctrines in question ; for the names 
medan India^ i. 100. Kapila, Pataipjali, and YKjnavalkya 

253 Now that the antiquity of the distinctly carry us back to a far 
extant form of the Sdqikhya-S6tras, earlier time than do the names 
according to Hall, has become so Jaimini and Bddardyana — namely, 
exceedingly doubtful, the view above into the closing phases of the Prdh* 
expressed also becomes in its turn xua^a literature itself. 



universe form the subject of tlie Uttara-Mimaftsd, which 
is hence also designated Bralwui - Mimdiisd, ^driraha- 
Mimdnsd (' doctiing- of embodied spirit ’), or also Veddnta 

end of the Ve<ia ’). The term ‘ Mimausa ’ originally de- 
notes merely speculation in general ; it occurs frequently 
in this sense in the Brahmanas, and only became a technical 
expression later,^ as is probably the case also with ‘ Ve- 
danta/ a word first occurring in the later Upanishads, in 
the tenth book of the Taittiriya-Aranyaka, the Kathako- 
panishad, Mundakopanishad, &c. 

The Karma - Miindnsd - Sdtra is ascribed to Jaimini, 
who is mentioned in the Puranas as the revealer of the 
Samaveda, though we search in vain in Vedic literature 

for any hint of his name.'*' 

In the Maliilhliitsliya, 

$aka^ <aecording to Kaiyu^a, is to he 
t^vkcu in the sense of mi'axdnsdm 
adliitc ; and as the tenn also occurs 
therein ct)ntriidisunctiontoa«^/itia, 
it might, in point of fact, refer to the 
subject of the Pdrva-Mlmdiisa. Still 
the proper word here for one speci- 
ally devoted to such studies would 
rather seem to be ydjnika ; see /. 
67., xiii, 455, 466. 

* With the exception of two 
probably interpolated passages in 
the G|:ihya-Stitras of the Rik (see 
pp. 56-58). — Nor is there anything 
bearing on it in the Oanapdfha of 
Pdniui — of which, indeed, for the 
present, only a negative use can be 
made, and even tins only with pro- 
per caution. But as the word is ir? 
regularly formed (from Jeman we 
should expect Juimaui), this circum- 
stance may here, perhaps, carry some 
weight. [Apparently it is not found 
in the Mahdbhdshya either ; see /. 
St.y xiii. 455- On the other band, the 
name Jaimini occurs in the concluding 
vai'da of the Sdma-vidbdna-Bnihn), 
(v. /, 67. , iv. 377), and here the bearer 
of it is described as the disciple of 
■T ydsii PariWarya, and preceptor of a 
I’aushpindya, which answers exactly 
to the statement in tlie Vish^u-Pur., 
iii. 6. I, 4, where he appears as the 
teacher of Paushpitpji (cf, also Ra- 

Still, of the teachers who 

ghuv., 18, 32, 33). The special re- 
lation of Jaimini to the Sdma-Veda 
appears also from the statements in 
the Rig-Gfihyiis (see note 49 above), 
which agree with Vislnju-Pur,, iii. 
4. 8, 9, Indeed, tlie Chara^ia-vydha 
specifics a Jaiminiya recension of 
the Sdman ; and this recension ap- 
pears to be still in existence (see 
note 60 above). In the Pravara 
section of the A.4val.-Srauta-S., xii, 
10, the Jaiminis are classed as be- 
longing to the Bhrigus, — All this, 
however, does not afford us any 
direct clue to the date of onr Jai- 
inini above, whose work, besides, 
is properly more related to the 
Yajur- than to the Sdraa-Veda. 
According to the Pahehatantra, the 
* Mimdnsdkrit' Jaimini was killed 
by an elephant — a statenient which, 
considering the antiquity of this 
work, is always of some value ; al- 
though, on the other hand, unfortun- 
ately, in consequence of the many 
changes its text has undergone, we 
have no guarantee that this parti- 
cular notice formed part of the orig- 
inal text which found its way to 
Persia in the sixth century (cf. /. St.^ 
viii. 159)- — There is also an astro- 
logical (Jdtaka) treatise which goes 
by the name of Jaimini-Sutra ; see 

Catal. of Skr, J/66. N. ir. 7>m 
(1874), pp. 508, 510, 514, 532.] 



are cited in this Siitra — Atreya, Badari, Badarayana, 
Labukayana Aiti^ayana — the niunes of the first and 

second, at all events, may be pointed tfut in the Taittin'ya' 
Prati^akhya and the ^rauta-Sutia of Katyayana respec- 
tively ; while we meet with the family of the Aita^ayanas 
in the Kaushitaki-Brdhmana* Badarayana is the name 
of the author of the Brahma-Mimansa- Siitra ; but it 
by no means follows from the mention of him here that 
his Siitra is older than the Siitra of Jaimini ; for not only 
may the name, as a patronymic, have designated other 
persons besides, but in the Siitra of the Brahma-Mimausa 
the case is exactly reversed, and Jaimini in his turn is 
mentioned there. All that results from this, as well as 
from the fact of each Siitra frequently citing its own 
reputed author, is rather that these Siitras were not reaUy 
composed by these teachers themselves, but only by their 
respective schbols.t The name Badarayana is not to be 
found “ in Panini,” as has recently been erroneously as- 
serted^ but only in the gana-pd^ha to Panini, not a very 
sure authority for the present. — As leading expounders of 
the Jaimini-Siitra we have mention of J>abara-svamin,^ 
and, after him, of Kumarila-bhatta : the latter is said 

to have flouiislied prior to Samkara.§ 

In the passage in question (vi. I'his commentary of ^abara- 

7. 37) ought we not to read Ldina- svjimin, which is even cited by 
kdyana? This is the name of a J^aqikara {Veddnta-SMra-hh.y \\u 3. 
teacher who is several times men- 53), witli the text of Jaimini itself, 
tinned in the Sdma-Sdtras ; see /, is at present still in course of publi- 

iv, 384, 373. — The apparent cation in the BihL Jnd,^ ed. by Ma- 
niention of Buddha in i, 2. 33 lie^achandra Nydyaratna (begun in 

dha-idstrdi) is only apparent: here 1863; the last part, 1871, brings it 
the word ‘buddha' Las nothing down to ix, i, 5). — M^hava's Jai- 
whatever to do with the name miniya-nydya-mdld-vistara, edited by 
^Buddha,* — To the above names Goldsliicker (1865 ff.), is also still 
must, however, be added Kdrsb^d* unfinished; see my 7 . ii. 376 fiP. 
jini (iv. 3. 17, vi. 7. 35) and E£mu- Who appears also to have 

kdyana (xi, i. 51); the former of borne the odd name of Tutita or even 
these is found also in Kitydyana and Tutdtita. At all events, Tautdtika, 
in the Veddnta - Siitra, the latter or Tautdtita, is interpreted by the 
only in t]xQ gana ‘ Na^a/ scholiast of the Prabodha-chandro- 

* XXX. 5, where they are charac- daya, 20. 9, ed. Brockhaus, to mean 
terised as the scum of the Bbrigu Kumdrila ; and the same explana- 
line, ^ ^ pdjndiihd tion is given by Aufrecht in his 

f See Colebrookc, i. 102, 103, 328, CataJogm, p. 247, in the case of the 
and above p. 49. Tautdtitas mentioned in Mddhava's 

+ By Max Muller in his otherwise Sarva-dai-saua-samgraha. 
most valuable contributions to our § See Colebrooke, i. 298 : yet the 
knowledge of Indian philosophy in tolerably modern title 6 /m 7 faawak- 
t^e Z, D. M. Q,y vi. 9. ens some doubt as to this : it may 





The Brahma- Sutra * belongs, as have just seen, to 
Badaniyana. The notion that creation is but Illusion, and 
that the transcendental Brahman is alone tlie Beal, but 
throning in absolute infinitude without any personal exist- 
ence, is the fundamental doctrine of this system. The 
attempt is here made to demonstrate that this doctrine 
is the end and aim of the Veda itself, by bringing all Vedic 
passages into harmony with this monotheistic pantheism, 
and by refuting the various views of the Samkhya, or 
atheistic, the Yoga, or theistic, and the Nyaya, or deistic 
schools, &c. The notice thus taken of the other systems 
would of itself seem to prove the posteriority of the Brahma- 
Sdtra; still, it is for the present uncertain whether its 
polemic is in fact directed against these systems in the 
form in which we now have them, or merely perhaps 
against the original tenets out of which these systems 
have sprung. The teachers’ names, at least, which are 
mentioned in the Brahma-Siitra recur to a large extent in 
the ^rauta-Siitras ; for example, A^marathya in A^valaya- 
na ; f Badari, Karshnajini and Ka^akritsni in Katyayana 
[see above, p. 139], and, lastly, Atreya in the Taittiriya- 
Ih’ati^akhya. The name Audulomi belongs exclusively 
to the Brahma-S\itra. 2®7 The mention of Jaimini and of 
Badarayana himself has been alieady touched upon. — 
Windischmann in his excellent “ ^amkara ” (Bonn, 1832) 

not have belonged to him originally example of the new Kalpas, in con- 
perhaps? [According to Cowell, tradistinctiou to the earlier ones, 
note to Colebrooke^s Misc, Ess,y i. and so is regarded as of the same 
323, there actually occur ill ^ainkara age with Pdnini. If, as is likely, 
“allusions to Kuindrila-bhatta, if the scholiast took this illustration 
no direct mention of him the from the Mabdbhdshya [but this is 
title hluxita belongs quite specially not the case; v, /. SUy xiii. 455]> 
to him: “lie is emphatically de- then this statement is important, 
signed by his title Bhatta.” For the I may mention in passing that Adma- 
rest, this title belongs likewise to rathya occurs in the gana ‘Garga;’ 
Bhatta- Bhdskara-Mi.sra and Bhattot- Audulomi in tlie gana ‘Bdhu ; * Krish- 
pala, and therefore is not by any ndjina in the ^anaa ‘ Tika ’ and ‘ Upa- 
meaiis ‘tolerably modern.’] ka;^ in the latter also Kasakritsna. 

* This name itself occurs in the The Gana-pd^ha, however, is a most 
Bhagavad-gitd, xiii. 4, but here it uncertain authority, and for Pilnini’s 
may be taken as an appellative rather time without weight, 
than as a proper name. It is found in the Mahdbhdshya 

f We ^ have already seen (p. 53) also, on Pdnini, iv, i. 85, 7 ^ > 
that the A. 4 raarathah Kalpah is in- /. xiii. 415. 
stanced by Pdnini’s scholiast as au 



has attempted directly to fix the age of the Brahma-Sutra. 
For Badarayana bears also the additional title of Vyasa, 
whence, too, the Brahma-Sfitra is expressly styled Vyasa- 
Siitra. Now, in the ^amkara-vijaya — a biography of the 
celebrated Vedanta commentator ^arnkara, reputed to be 
by one of his disciples — we find it stated (see Windisch- 
mann, p. 85 ; Colebrooke, i. 104) that Vyasa was tlie name 
of the father of ^uka, one of wliose disciples was Gauda- 
pada, the teacher of Govindanat ha, who again was the 
preceptor of ^amkara ; ^ so that the date of this Vyasa 
might be conjecturaUy set down as from two to three 
centuries prior to ^amkara, that is, between 400 and 500 
A.D. But the point must remain for the present undeter- 
mined,* since it is open to question whether this Vyasa 
ouglit really to be identified with Vydsa Badarayana, 
thougli this appears to mi at least very probable.^® 

*'^^8 See now in Aufrecht’a Cato- nas and the Chinese and 

loguSj p. 25 5^*, the passage in ques- Huns. 

tion from Sfddhava’s (!) iSazpkara- In the meantime, the name 

vijaya, v, 5 (rather v. 105, according Bifdardyana is only known to occur, 
to the ed. of the work published at besides, in the closing vankt of the 
Botnbay in 1864 with Dhanapati- Sdina-Vidhdna-Br. ; see /, 6V., iv. 
sdi i’s commentary), and p. 377 ; and here the bearer of it ap. 

227^, the same statements from pears as the disoiple of Pdr£L 4 iiryiiya- 
another work. The 6arpkara- vijaya na, four steps later than Vydsa Pdrd- 
of Anandagiri, on the contrary, 6arya, and three later than Jaimini, 
Aufiecht, p. 247 ff. (now in the but, on the other hand, as the 
BibL ImLy edited by Jayandniyana, teacher (!) of Tdndin and Sdtyilyauin. 
1S64-1S68), contains nothing of Besides being iiientioned in Jaiinini, 
this, he is also cited in the ^dndilya-Stltra. 

* Saipkara, on Brahma-Sdtra, iii. In Vardba-Mihira and Bba^^otpala 
3. 32, mentions that Apdntaratamas an astronomer of this name is re- 
lived as Krishna-Dvaipdyana at the ferred to; and he, in his turn, ac- 
time of the transition from the Kali cording to Aufrecht {Catalogus, p. 
to the Dvdpara yuga; and from the 329*), alludes, in a passage quoted 
fact of his not at the same time ex- from him by Utpala, to the ^Yava,na* 
pressly stating that this was Vyd-^a vriddhdSy' and, according to Kern, 
Bddiudyi»pa, author of the Brahma- Pief. to Brih, Sanili,, p. 51, “ ex- 
Sfitra, Windischmanu concludes, liibits many Greek words.” — The 
and justly, that in oaipkara’s eyes text of the Brabina-Stiira, with 
the two personages were distinct. Saipkara*s commentary, has now 
In the Mahd-Bhdrata, on the cou- been published in the BibL 7 nd., 
trary, xii. 12158 flf., 6uka is expressly edited by Koer and (from part 3) 
given as the son of Krishna Dvai- Bdma Ndrdyana Vidydratna (1854- 
pdyana (Vydsa PdrjL^arya), But the 1863) : of the translation of both by 
episode in question is certainly one K. M. Banerjea, as of that in Ballan- 
of the very latest insertions, as is tyne’s Aphmsms^ only one part ha« 
clear from the allusion to the Chi- appeared (1870). 



Ill respect of their redaction to systematic shape, th«j 
logical Siitras of Kanada and Gotama appear to rank 
last. But this by no means indicates that these logical 
inquiries are themselves of later origin — on the contrary, 
the other Siitras almost uniformly begin with such — but 
merely that the formal development of logic into two philo- 
sophical schools took place comparatively late. Neither 
of the schools restricts itself to logic alone; each em- 
braces, rather, a complete philosophical system, built up, 
however, upon a purely dialectic^ method. But as yet 
little has been done to elucidate the points of difference 
between the two in this regard.^® The origin of the world 
is in both derived from atoms, which combine by the will 
of an arranging Power.^®^ — Whether the name of the 
npdfJLvat, who are described by Strabo as contentious 
dialecticians, is to bo traced to the word pramd'tM, ‘ proof,’ 
as Lassen supposes, is doubtful. The word tarka, ‘ doubt,’ 

again, in the Katliakopanishad, ought rather, from the 
context, to be referred to the Samkhya doctrines, and 
should not be taken in the sense, which at a later period 
is its usual one, of ‘ logic.’ In Manu too (see Lassen, /. 
AIC, i. 835), according to the traditional interpretation, 
tarhin still denotes ‘ one versed in the Mimdhsa logic.’ 
Yet Manu is also acquainted with logic as a distinct 

In this respect, Roer in parti- 
cular has done excellent service : iu 
tlie copious notes to his translation 
of the VaiSeshika - Sdtra he has 
throughout special regard to this 
very point (in Z. D, M, G., vols. 

edited, in the Bibl, Ind,^ the Nydya- 
dai'^ana of Gotama with the coin* 
nieutiiry of Vdrsyjiyana (Paksbila- 
svimin). The earlier edition (1828) 
was accompanied with the com- 
mentary of Vi^vandtha. The first 

xxi. xxii. 1867, 1868). Before 

him, Muller, with some of Ballan- 
tyne’s writings as a basis, had al- 
ready taken liie same line (in vols. 
vi. and vii, of the same Journal, 
1852, 1853), The text of the 
Vai^eshika-Siitrus, with the com- 
mentary, called Upaskdra, of ^am- 
kara-mi 4 ra, appeared in Bibl. Ind, in 
i860, 1861, edited, with a gloss of 
his own, by Jaya Ndrdyana Tarka- 
pahchdnana. In the Pandit (Nos. 
32-69) there is a complete transla- 
tion of both text and commentary 
by A. E. Gough. — Jaya Ndrdyana 
has also since then (1864-65) 

four books have been translated by 
Ballantyne in his Aphorisms, 

We find the atomic theory es- 
pecially developed among the Jainas, 
and that in a materialistic form, 
yet so, that the atomic matter and 
the vital principle are conceived 
to be in eternal intimate connec- 
tion ; see my Essay on the Bbaga- 
vati of tlie Jainas, ii. 168, 176, lOo, 
236. We have a mythological ap- 
plication of it in the assiimption of 
a prajdpati Marichi ; see 1 . St.y ix. 9. 

261: jjj Pitpask., ii. 6 V'vidhif 
vidheyas tarlcas cha vedah")^ tarJea 
is equivalent to arthavdda^ fiiimdnsdu 


science, as well as with the three leading methods of proof 
which it teaches, though not under the names that were 
afterwards usual. According to the most recent investiga- 
tions on the subject,* “ the terms naiydyika and kevcda- 
naiydyika (Pan., ii i. 49) would point to the Nyaya system 
as antecedent to Panini:” these words, however, do not 
occur in the text of Panini at all (which has merely the 
word Icevala !), but only in his scholiast.f — Kanada’s 
system bears the name VaUeshika-Sdira, because its ad- 
herents assert that viiesha, ‘ particularity,’ is predicable of 
atoms ; the system of Gotama, on the other hand, is styled 
Nydycb-SutTOL, kut ^^o'yrjv. Which of the two is the older 
is still uncertain. Tlie circumstance that the doctrines of 
the Vaileshikas are frequently the subject of refutation 
in the Vedanta-Siitra, — whereas Gotama’s teaching is no- 
where noticed, either in the text or in the commentaries 
upon it, as stated by Colehrooke (i. 352), — tells d ^priori 
in favour of the higher antiquity of the former ; ^ 
but whether the author of the Vedanta had these ‘ doc- 
trines of Kanada ’ before him in their systematised form, 
as has recently been assumed.J is a point still requiring 
investigation.^®* — For the rest, these two systems are at 

* By Max Muller, /. c., p. 9. as we know at present, is first men- 

f This is one of the cases of tioned by Mddhava. Their patro- 
which I have alre<ady spoken (p. nymics, Kit^yapa and Gautama (this 
225). form is preferable to Gotama) date, 

In the Sdipkhya-Sutra they it is true, from a very early time, 
are even expressly mentioned by but, beyond this, they tell us nothing, 
name (see p, 237) j also in the sacred Of interest, certainly, although 
texts of the Jainaa (v. note 249). — without decisive Aveight, is the iden- 
The circumstance that the Gotama- tification — occurring in a late com- 
Sdtra does not, like the other five mentator (Anantayajvan) on the 
philosophical text-books, begin with Pitpmedba-Sfitra of Gautama, be- 
the customary Sdtra-formula, *aihd longing to the Sdma- Veda — of this 
may perhaps also be regarded latter Gautama with Akshapdda ; 
as a sign of later composition. see Burneirs Catalogue, p. 57. — 

J ^ Muller, L c., p. 9 : “ Whereas From CowelTs preface to his edition 
Kandda’s doctrines are there fre- of the Kusiimdhjali (1864) it ap- 
quently discussed.” pears that the commentary of Pa- 

2®* Inneitherof theSdtras arethere kshila-svdmin, whom he directly 
references to older teachers whose identifies with Vdtsydyana, was corn- 
names might supply some chro- posed prior to Dinndga, that is to 
nological guidance. As regards the say (see note 219 above), somewhere 
names of their authors themselves, about the beginning of the sixth 
Kandda or Kanabhuj (Kanabhaksha) century. Uddyotakara, wlio is men- 
is mentioned by Vardha-Mihira and tioned by Subandhu in the seventh 
Saipkara, while Akahapdda, so far century, wrote against Dinndga, and 


present, and have been for a long time past, those most in 
favour in India ; and it would also appear that among the 
philosophical writings contained in the Tibetan Tandjur, 
logical works are the most numerously represented. 

Besides these six systems, all of which won for them- 
selves a general currency, and which on the whole are 
regarded as orthodox — ^however slight is the title of the 
Samkhya theo^, for instance, to be so esteemed — we have 
frequent mention of certain heterodox views, as those of 
the Charyakas, Laukayatikas,^^^ Barhaspatyas. Of this 
last-mentioned school there must also have existed a com- 
plete system, the Barhaspatya-Sutra ; but of all this 
nothing has survived save occasional quotations, intro- 
duced with a view to their refutation, in the commentaries 
of the orthodox systems. 

We now come to the third branch of the scientific lite- 
rature, Astronomy, with its auxiliary sciences.* We have 
already seen (pp. 112, 113) that astronomy was cultivateil 
to a considerable extent even in Vedic times; and wc 
found. it expressly specified by Strabo (see pp. 29, 30) as a 
fpoiu:ite pursuit of the Brahmans. It was at the same 
time remarked, however, that this astronomy was still in a 
very elementary stage, the observations of the heavens 
being still wholly confined to a few fixed stars, more espe- 
cially to the twenty-seven or twenty-eight lunar asterisms, 
and to the various phases of the moon itself.^®® The cir- 
cumstance that the Vedic year is a solar year of 360 days. 

80 did VKchaspati - mi^ra in the 
tenth, and Udayana, the author of 
the Kusuradhjali, in the twelfth 
century ; see also CowelTs note to 
Colebrooke’s Muc. i. 282. Gafl- 
gei^a’s Nydya-chinUhnani, the most 
important work of the later Nyjiya 
literature, is also placed in the 
twelfth century ; see Z. D, M, O,, 
xxvii, 168. AuWkya, given by 
Mddhava as a name for the tenets 
of Kanitda, rests on a play upon 
the word kdntkla, ‘ crow • eater ’ == 

In the Malidbhdshya there is 
mention of a Ehdgfuri 

lokdfjatasya ; ” see /, St.^ xiii. 343. 

A Bhdguri appears among the 
teachers cited in the Brihad-iievatd. 
The Loktiyatas are also repudiated 
by the Biiddhists, Northern as well 
as Southern ; v. Burnouf, Lotus dt 
la honne Loi^ pp. 409, 470. The 

Jainas, too, rat)k their system only 
with loiya- {laukika) knowledge ; 
see above, note 249. — On the Chdr- 
ydkas, see the introduction of the 


* See 7 . SL, ii, 236-287. 

The cosmical or astronomical 
data met with in the Brdhnianas are 
all of an extremely childish and naive 
description ; see L St, ix. 358 ff. 



and not a lunar year, does indeed presuppose a tolerably 
accurate observation and computation of the sun’s course ; 
but, agreeably to what has just been stfited, we can hardly 
imagine that this computation proceeded upon the pheno- 
mena of the nocturnal heavens, and we must rather assume 
it to have been based upon the plienomena of the length 
or shortness of the day, &c. To the elaboration of a quin- 
quennial cycle with an intercalary month a pretty early 
date must lie assigned, since the latter is mentioned in the 
Rik-Samhita. The idea of the four mundane ages, on the 
contrary — although its origin, from observation of the 
moon’s phases, may possibly be of extreme antiquity — 
can only have attained to its complete development to- 
wards the close of the Vedic period : Megasthenes, as we 
know, found the Yuga system flourishing in full perfection. 
That the Hindi! division of the moon’s path into twenty- 
seven (or twenty-eight) lunar mansions is of Chinese origin, 
as asserted by Biot {Journal des Savants, 1 840, 1845; see 
Lassen, L AK., i. 742 ff.), can hardly be admitted.®®* 
Kotwiths landing the accounts of Chinese writers, the 
contrary might equally well be the case, and the system 
might possibly have been introduced into China through 
the medium of Buddhism, especially as Buddhist writings 
adhere to the ancient order of the astcrisms — commencing 
with Krittikd — precisely as we find it among the Chinese.®®® 

^ disputes this origin in his Couries Ohservations mr qvzlquez 

Die Lehre von den Tier WeltaU Pointe deVIIhtoire de ¥ Astronomic 
t€rn {iS60j Tubingen), (1863) ; and, lastly, Whitney in the 

On the questions dealt with second vol. of his OHental and Lin-' 
in what follows, a special discussion guislic Sttidies (1874), To the views 
was raised between J. B, Biot, my- expressed above I still essentially 
self, and Whitney, in which A, S 4 - adhere ; Whitney, too, inclines to- 
dillot, Steinschneider, E. Burgess, wards them. In favour of Chaldiea 
and Max Muller also took part. Cf, having been the mother - country 
the Journal des Savants for 1859, and of the system, one circumstance, 
Biot’s posthumous Etudes sur VAs- amongst others, tells with especial 
Ironomie Indienne et Chtnoise (1862); force,viz,, that from China, India, and 
iny t\^ o papers, Die Vedischen Nach- Babylon we have precisely the same 
richien von den Nakshatra (i86o, accounts of the length of the longest 
1862), as also L Str,y ii. 172, 173 ; day ; whilst the statements, e.y,, in 
/. Sty ix. 424 fif. (1865), X, 213 ff. the Bundehesch, on this head, exhi- 
(1866) ; Whitney in Jowm, Am, Or. bit a total divergence ; see Windisch- 
Soc,, vols. vi. and viii, (i860, 1864, mann {Zoroasirischt Studiedly p. 105), 
1865); Burgess, ihid. j Steinschnei- This assertion of Biot’s has not 

der in Z.D.M. 0 ., xviii. {1863); been confirmed; the Chinese list 
Muller in Pref, to vol. iv. of his edi- commences with Cbitrd (f.c., the 
tion of the l^ik (1862); S6diliot, autumnal equinox), or Uttardsbd^hds 



To me, however, the most probable view is that these limar 
mansions are of Chaldsean origin, and that from the Chal- 

daeans they passed to the Hindus as well as to the Chinese. 
For the of the Book of Kings, and the DillO of the 
Book of Job,®^ which the Biblical commentators errone- 

ously refer to the zodiac, are just the Arabic man- 

sions ; ’ and here even Biot will hardly suppose a Chinese 
origin. The Indians may either have brought the know- 
ledge of these lunar mansions with them into India, or else 
have obtained it at a later time through the commercial 
relations of the Phoenicians with the Panjab. At all events, 
they were known to the Indians from a very early period, 
and as communication with China is altogether inconceiv- 
able at a time when the Hindus were perhaps not even 
acquainted with the mouths of the Canges, Clhnese influ- 
ence is here quite out of the question. The names of some 
of these asterisms occur even in the Rik-Samhita (and that 
under peculiar forms); for example, the Agluis, i.e., Maglids, 
and the Arjunyau, i.e., Phalgv,nyav/—~Q. name also applied 
to them in the Satapatha-Brahmana — in the nuptial hymn, 
mandala x. 85. 13; further, Tishya in mandala v. 54. 13, 
which, however, is referred by Sayana to the sun (see also 
X. 64. 8). The earliest complete enumeration of them, with 
their respective regents, is found in the Taittiriya-Sam- 

(the winter solstice), both of which nomy in Chaldsea, Wassiljew com* 
rather correspond to an arrangement pares with Zoroaster, but in which 
in which Revati passes as the sign of I atn inclined rather to look for 
thevernalequinox; seemyfirst Kssay the Kraushtuki whose acquaiut- 
on the Nakshatras, p, 300. — Cf. here ance we make in the Atharva- Paris, 
also the account of the twenty-eight (see Lit, 0 , Bl.^ 1869, p. 1497) — 
lunar asterisms, contained in a letter who arranged the constellations in 
from Wiissiljew to Schiefiier (see the the order quoted in the Dictioiiar}' 
latter’s German translation of the in question, that is, beginning with 
Preface to Wassiljew’s Russian ren- Krittikd. Afterwards there came 
dering of Tiirandtha’s history of Bud- another Rishi, Kdla (Time 1 ), who 
dhism, pp, 30-32, 1869), and commu- set up a new theory in regard to the 
nicated, according to tl»e commentary motion of the constellations, and so 
on the Buddhistic Lexicon Mahd- in course of time Chitrji came to be 

vyutpatti, from the book Sannipiita 
(Chinese Ta-tsiking). According 
to this account, it was the astrono- 
mer Kharo-shtha (ass’s-lip) — a name 
which, as well as that of Xarustr, 
who, as Armenian authorities state, 
lU'igiuated the science of astro- 

?]amed as the first asterism. To all 
appearance, this actually proves the 
lute, and Buddhistic, origin of the 
Chinese Kio-list ; see Nakshatras^ i. 


270 On this point see specially /, 

X. 217. 



hitd ; a second, which exhibits considerable variation in 
the names, betokening a later date, occurs in the Atliarva- 
Samhita and the Taittiriya-Brahmana ; the majority of the 
names are also given in Panini, This latter list contains 
for the most part the names employed by the later astro- 
nomers ; and it is precisely these later ones that are enu- 
merated in the so-called Jyotisha or Vedic Calendar (along 
with the zodiacal signs too!).. To this latter treatise an 
importance has hitherto been attributed to which its con- 
tents do not entitle it. Should my conjecture be confirmed 
that the Lagadha, Lagata, whose system it embodies, is 
identical with the Lat who is mentioned by Albiriini as 
the author of the ancient Surya-Siddhanta [see, however, 
p. 258 n.], then it would fall in the fourth or fifth century 
of our era ; and even this might almost seem too high an 
antiquity for this somewhat insignificant tract, which has 
only had a certain significance attached to it on account 
of its being ranked with the Veda.* 

A decided advance in astronomical science was made 
through the discovery of the planets. The earliest men- 
tion of these occurs, perhaps, in the Taittinya-AYanyaka, 
though this is still uncertain beyond this, they are not 
noticed in any other work of the Vedic period.^'^ Manu’s 

* This is why it adheres to the old 
order of the lunar asterisuis, as is 
done even at the present day in writ- 
ings that bear upon the Veda. [Ac- 
cording to the special examination of 
the various points here involved, in 
the introduction to my Ks.say on the 
Jyotisha (1862), a somewhat earlier 
term is possible ; assuming, of course, 
as I there do, that those verses which 
betoken Greek influence do not 
really belong to the text as it origi- 
nally stood. The author appears 
occasionally also under the name 
Lagaijichdrya ; see above, p. 61, 

The passages referred to are, in 
fact, to be understood in a totally 
different sense ; see /• -S'i., ix. 363, x. 


The Maitrdyani-Up, forms the 
single exception, but that only in its 
last two books, described as Iddla ; 

above, notes 103, 104. On the 
subject itself, see further my Essiiy 

on the Jyotisha,, /. S., ix. 363, 
442, X. 239, 240. — The two Rik pus- 
sages which are tluuiglit by Alf. 
Ludwig, in his recently published 
Nackrichten dvs Riff- und Atharva- 
Veda ilbcr GeograjMe, <C*c., dee alien 
JndtenSf to contain an allusion to the 
planets (i. 105. lO, x. 55. 3), can 

hardly have any such reference. 
Neither the J^dtydyanaka, cited by 
Sdyana to i. 105. 10, nor Sdyana 
himself, hasany thought of the planets 
here (see I. St , , ix. 363 11.). For the 
^ divichard gralidk^ of Ath. S., 19. 9. 
7, the Atb. Pari^ishtas offer other 
■ parallels, showing that here too the 
planets are not to be thought of, 
e.spccially as immediately afterwards, 
in v. 10, the ^ gralids chdndravmsdh 
. . dditydh . . rdkund^ arc enume- 
rated, where, distinctly, the allusion 
is only to eclipses. This particular 
section of the Ath. S. (19. 7) 
moreover, quite a late production ; 

see /. SL^ iv. 433 u. 



law-book is unacquainted with them ; Yajnavalkya’s Code, 
however — and this is significant as to the difference in 
age of these two works — inculcates their worship ; in the 
dramas of Kdlidasa. in the Mrichhakatf and the Maha- 
Bharata, as well as the Eamayana, they are repeatedly 
referred to.* Their names are peculiar, and of purely 
Indian origin ; three of them are thereby designated as 
sons respectively of the Sun (Saturn), of the Earth (Mars), 
and of the Moon (Mercury) ; and the remaining two as 
representatives of the two oldest families of Rishis, — An- 
giras (Jupiter) and Blirigu (Venus). The last two names 
are probably connected with the fact that it was the adhe- 
rents of the Atharva-Veda — which was likewise specially 
associated with the Rishis Aiigiras and Bhrigu — who at this 
time took the lead in the cultivation of astronomy and 
astrology.! Besides these names others are also common ; 
Mars, for example, is termed ‘ the Red Venus, ‘ the White’ 
or ‘ Beaming ; ’ Saturn, ‘ the Slow-travelling ; ’ this last 
being the only one of the names that testifies to any real 
astronomical observation. To these seven planets (sun 
and moon being included) the Indians added two others, 
Rahu and Ketu, the ‘ head ’ and ‘ tail ’ respectively of the 
monster who is conceived to be the cause of the solar 
and lunar eclipses. The name of the former, Rahu, first 
occurs in the Chhandogyopanishad,^^® though here it can 
hardly be taken in the sense of ‘ planet ; ’ the latter, on the 
contrary, is first mentioned in Yajnavalkya. But this num- 
ber nine is not the original number, — if indeed it be to the 
planets that the passage of the Taittiriya-Arnnyaka, above 
instanced, refers — as only seven {sapta shrydli) are there 
mentioned. The term for planet, graha, ‘ the seizer,’ is 
evidently of astrological origin ; indeed, astrology was the 
focus in which astronomical inquiries generally converged, 
and from which they drew light and animation after the 
practical exigencies of worship had been once for all satis- 
fied. Whether the Hindus discovered the planets inde- 

* In Pdn., iv. 2. 26, iukra might 
be referred to the planet Snkra, but 
it is preferable to take it in the sense 
itt Soma-juice. 

'}• Whence Bhdrgava came to sig- 

nify ‘ an astrologer ; * see Da^a- 
kuindra, ed. Wilson, p, 162, II, 

Cf. also Ihlhula :ir the name of 
Buddha’s son, who, however, alsii 
a]>pear 3 as Ldghula ; see /. ill 

130, 149. 


25 * 

pendently, or whether the knowledge came to them from 
without, cannot as yet be determined ; but the systematic 
peculiarity of the nomenclature points in the meantime to 
the former view .2^* 

It was, however, Greek influence that first infused a real 
life into Indian astronomy. This occupies a much more 
important position in relation to it than has hitherto been 
supposed ; and the fact that this is so, co ijpso implies 
that Greek influence affected other branches of the litera- 

ture as well, even though we may be unable at present 
directly to trace it elsewhere.^^® Here it is necessary to 
insert a few particulars as to the relations of - the Greeks 

with the Indians. 


by the establishment of the Greek monarchies of Bactria, 
whose sway, in the period of their prime, extended, al- 
though only for a brief season, over the Panjdb as far 

as Gujardt.®^® 

Concurrently therewith, the first Seleu- 

cidaj, as well as the Ptolemies, frequently maintained 
direct relations, by means of ambassadors, with the court 
of Pdtalinutra : * and thus it comes that in the inscriptions 

Still it has to be remarked that 
in the Atharva-Pari^ish^as, which, 
with the Jyotieha, represent the 
oldest remains of Indian astrology, 
the sphere of influence of the planets 
appears in special connection with 
their Greek names ; see L SLy viii. 

413* 319. 

27 ® Cf. my paper, Indische Beilrd^jc 
ziir Geschichte der AuBBjrracht des 
Orkchischen in the Momtsberichte der 
Btrl Acad.y 1871, p. 613, translaUd 

in Ivd. Antiq.y ii. 143 ff., 1873. 

276 According to Qoldstucker, the 

statement in the Mah^h&bya as to 
a then recent siege of S&eta (Oude) 
by a Yavana prince has reference to 
Menander; while the accounts in 
the Yuga-Purd^a of the Gdr^ Saqi- 
hitd even speak of an expedition of 
the Yavanas as far as Pd^aliputra. 
But then the question arises, whether 
by the Yavanas it is really the 
Greeks who are meant (see L Sir,, 
ii. 348), or possibly merely their 
Indo-Scythian or other successors. 

to whom the name was afterwards 
transferred ; see /. St.y xiii. 306, 
307 ; also note 202 above. 

* Thus Megasthenes was sent by 
Seleucus to Chandragupta (d, B.C. 
291); Deimachus, again, by An- 
tioclius, and Dionysius, and most 
probably Basilis also, by Ptolemy II, 
to ^ AfiiTpox^TTfSy Amitraghdta, son 
of Chandragupta, [Antiochus con» 
eluded an alliance with Xwtpdyo,- 

Subhagasena (?). Seleucus 
even gave Chandragupta his daugh- 
ter to wdfe ; Lassen, /. AK.y ii, 
208; Talboys Wheeler, Jfistoiy oj 
India (1874), p. 177. In the retinue 
of this Greek princess there of 
course came to Pdtaliputra Greek 
damsels as her waiting-maids, and 
these must have found particular 
favour in the eyes of the Indians, 
especially of Iheir princes. For not, 
only are irapOivoi ei'etStT? Trpos waX- 
Xafctuf' inentionrd as an article of 
traffic for India, bvtt in Indian in- 
scriptions also \ve find Yavana girli 



of Piyadasi we find mention of the names of Antigonus, 
Magas, Antiochus, Ptolemy, perhaps even of Alexander 
himself (cf. p. 179), ostensibly as vassals of the king, 
which is of course mere empty boasting. As the result 
of these embassies, the commercial intercourse between 
Alexandria and the west coast of India became particu- 
larly brisk ; and the city of Ujjayini, rose in con- 

sequence to a high pitch of prosperity. Philostratus, in 
his life of Apollonius of Tyana — a work written in the 
second century a.d., and based mainly on the accounts of 
Damis, a disciple of Apollonius, who accompanied the 
latter in his travels through India about the year 50 A.D. — 
mentions the high esteem in wliich Greek literature was 
lield by the Brahmans, and that it was studied by almost 
all persons of the higher ranks. (Reinaud, M&m. sur V hide, 
pp. 85, 87.) This is not very high authority, it is true 
[cf. Lassen, /. AK., iii. 358 ff.]; the statement may be. an 
exaggeration, but still it accords with the data which we 
have now to adduce, and which can only be explained 
upon the supposition of a very lively intellectual inter- 
change. For the Indian astronomers regularly speak of 
the Y avanas as their teachers : but whether this also ap- 
plies to Paraiara, who is reputed to be the oldest Indian 
astronomer, is still uncertain. To judge from the quota- 
tions, he computes by the lunar mansions, and would 
seem, accordingly, to stand upon an independent footing. 
But of Garga,* who passes for the next oldest astronomer. 

specified as tribute; while iu Indian 
literature, and especially in KtlH- 
d(isa, we are informed that Indian 
princes were waited upon by Ya- 

vanis ; I.-asson, /. AK.^ ii. 55 ^ 957 j 
1159, and my Preface to the Mdla- 
vik^ p. xlvii. The metier <>f thcKc 
damsels beinj; devotml to Eros, it 
is not a very far-fetclu'd conjecture 
that it may have been owing to 
their influence that the Hindu go<l 
of Love, like the Greek Eros, bears 
H dolphin (T^aiara) on his banner, 
and, like him, is the son of the 
goddess of Beauty ; see Z, D. Af, 
xiv, 269. (For mnkara — dolphin, 
see Journ. Bomb, Br, 72 . A, 6*., v, 
^4; /. Sir,, ii. 169); and cf, 
further /. * 5 ’/., ix. 3 ^^'] 

* The name of PanWara, as well 
as that of Garga, belongs only to 
the last stage of Vedic literature, to 
the Aranyakas and the Sutras : in 
the earlier works neither of the two 
names is mentioned. The family 
of the Pani4ara3 is represented with 
particular frequency in the later 
members of the of tlie Sata- 

patha-Bnihmana : a Garga and a 
Pardsara are also named in the 

Anukramanl as Rishis of several 

» • 

hymns of the Rik, and another 
Paritsara aT>pears in Pdnini a.s author 
of the Bliikshu-Sutra; see pp. 143, 
1S5. [The Qargas must have played 
a very important part at the time of 
the Mahilbhdshya, iu the eyes of the 
author at all events ; for on almost 



an oft-quoted verse lias come down to us, in which he 
extols the Yavanas on account of their astronomical 
knowledge. Tlie e})ic tradition, again, gives as the earliest 
astronomer the Asura Maya, and asseits that to him the 
sun-god himself imparted the knowledge of the stars. I 
have already elsewhere (/, St., ii. 243) expressed the con- 
jecture that this ‘Asura Maya’ is identical with the 
‘ Ptolemaios’ of the Greeks; since this latter name, as we 
see from the inscriptions of Piyadasi, became in Indian 
‘ Turamaya,’ out of which the name ‘ Asura Maya ’ might 
very easily grow ; and since, by the later tradition (tliat 
of the Jnana-bhaskara, for instance) this Maya is dis- 
tinctly assigned to Pomaka-pura* in the West, Lastly, 
of the five Siddhantas named as the earliest astronomi- 
cal systems, one — the Roniaka-Siddhanta — ^is denoted, by 
its very name, as of Greek origin ; while a second — the 
Pauliia-Siddhanta — is expressly stated by Albiriinff to 
have been composed by Paulus al Yiinanf, and is accord- 
ingly, perhaps, to be regarded as a translation of the 
Eto-a7tt)7»^ of Paulus Alexandrinus.^^ The astronomers 

every occasion when it is a question acquainted with the nairie, he would 
of a patr<>nytnio or other similar scarcely have failed to make a 
affix, their name is introduced similar use of it to that found in the 
among those given as examples; Mahd-Bhdrata. [Cf. my Essay on 
see /. xiii. 410 ff. In the the Hdindyana, p. 23 if’.] 

Atharva-Pai ii^ishtas, also, wo find ’)• Albirilni resided a considerable 
Garga,Gdrgya,V|’iddha-Garga cited; time in India, in the following of 
these latter Gargas are manifestly Mahmfid of Ghasna, and acquired 
very closely related to the above- there a very accurate knowledge of 
mentioned Qarga the astronomer. Sanski'it and of Indian literature, of 
See further Kern, Pref, to Vardiia- which ho has left us a very valuable 
Mihira's Brih. Saqili., p. 31 ff, ; /. account, written a.d. 1031. Ex- 
Hir.y ii. 347*] tracts from this highly important 

* See my CaioL. of the Samk, , workwerecommunicated byReinaud 
MSS, in the Bert, Lib,^ p. 288. In in the Joum, Asiat, for 1844, and 
reference to the name Romaka, I in his Mim. 8 url*Inde in 1849 [also 
may make an observation in passing, by Woepeke, ibid,, 1863] : the text, 
Whereas, in Mahd - Blidrata xii. promised so long ago us 1843, and 
10308, the Raumyas are said to most eagerly looked for ever since, 
liave been created from the ro 7 na- has, unfortunately, not as yet ap- 
hipas (‘hair-pores’) of Virabhadra, peared, [Ed. Sachau, of Vienna, is 
at the destruction of Daksba’s sac- at present engaged in editing it; and, 
rifice, at the time of Rdmdyaijia i. from his energy, w'e may now at 
55. 3, their name must have been length expect that this grievous 
still unknown, since other tribes want will be speedily supplied ] 
are there represented, on a like *77 Such :i direct connection of 

occasion, as springing from the the Pulisa - Siddhanta witli the 
roma-kHpas. Had the author been is attended with difficulty, 



and astronomical works just instanced — Garga, Maya, tlie 
liomaka-Siddhanta, and the Pauli^a-Siddhanta — are, it 
is true, known to us only through isolated quotations; 
and it might still he open to doubt, perhaps, whether 
in their case the presence of Greek influence can really 
be established ; although the assertion, for instance, that 
Puli^a, in opposition to Aryabhata, began the day at 
midnight, is of itself pretty conclusive as to his Western 
origin. But all doubt disappears when we look at the 
great mass of Greek words employed in his writings by 
Varaha-Mihira, to whom Indian astronomers assigned, in 
Albi'runi’s day, as they still do in our own,* the date 504 
A.i). — employed, too, in a way which clearly indicates that 
they had long been in current use. Nay, one of his works 
— the Hora-Sastra — even bears a Greek title (from (upi/) ; 

and in it he not only gives the (uitire list of the Greek 
names of the zodiacal signs and planets,+ but he also 
directly employs several of the latter — namely, Ara^ 
Aspliujit, and Kona — side by side with the Indian names, 
and just as frequently as he does these. The signs of the 

from the fact that the quotations 
from PulWa do not accord with it, 
being rather of an astronomical than 
an astrological description. That 
the E/<ra7W7^, however, was itself 
known tothe Hindds, in some form or 
other, finds support in the circum- 
stance that it alone contains nearly 
the whole of the technical terrn.s 
adopted by Indian astronomy from 
the Greek ; see Kern’s Preface to 
his edition of Varitha - Mihira’s 
Brihat-Samh., p. 49. — Considerable 
interest attaches to the argument 

w^rk (Qai^ita^pdda^ v. i). This 
was pointed out by Bhdu Diji in 

/. R, A. 5 ., u 392 (1864). 

* See Colebrooke, ii. 461 (4l5ed« 

f These are the following : Kriya 
Kpi6s, Tdvuri ravpoi, Jituma 
Kulira K6\ovpo% (?), Leya Fd’ 

thona'irapBivoSf K/iurpya 

<r/fo/)7r(os, Tattkshika 7o$6t7;s, Akokera 
aiydKepmy Hridroga I'Opox^os, Ittha 

further, "HXtos, Ilimna 

Ara Kona KpAi'os, 

Jyau Zeus, Asphujit W<(>po 8 [ry, 

put forward by H. Jacobi in his These names were made known so 
tract, De Astrologice hidicce llorCv long ago as 1827 by C. M. Whish, 
AppclkUm Originibus (Bonn, 1872), in tlic first part of the Tranmetiona 
to tlie effect tiiat the system of the of the Lilt vary Society of Madras, 

twelve mansions occurs first in Fir- and have since been fi*equently piib- 
raicus Materiuis (A.n, 336-354), and lished ; see in particular Lassen, in 
that consequently the Indian Hord- Zeilscli, f d. Kunde dcs Morg,^ iv. 
texts, in which these are of such 306, 318 (1842) ; lately again in my 
fundamental significance, can only Cafial. of the Satisk. MSS. in the 
have been composed at a still later Berl. Lib., p. 238 . — Hord and Icen- 
dato. dra lia<l long previously been iden- 

273 This, and not Aryabhatta, is tified by P^re Pons with &py and 
the proper spelling of his name, as KivTpov\ see Lctfres Edif., 26. 23^1 
Is shown by the metre in his own 237, Paris, 1743. 


zodiac, on the contrary, he usually designates by their 
Sanskrit names, which are translated from the Greek. 
He has in constant use, too, the following technical terms, 
all of which ai'e found employed in the same sense in 
the Elacvyayin oi Paulus Alexandrinus, viz.,* dHMna = 
8eKav6<;, liptd = XeTTTTj, anaphd = dva(j)r], sunaphd — 
avvad>^, durudhard = Zopv^opia, kemadruma (for krema- 
duma) =■ ')(pr)p.aTC<rp,6^^ veii — ^aa l<; , kendra = Kevjpov, 
dpoklivfid = d'jroKRipxi, panaphcirci = e'jrava<f>opa, trikonu 
= T/3i7a)i/o9, hibuka = vTro^eiov, jdmitra = hiaperpov, 
dyviOLTn = 8vt6v, meshdraijM = fieaovpavifjpa. 

Al though most of these names denote astrological re- 
lations, still, on the other hand, in the division of the 
heavens into zodiacal signs, decani, and degrees, they com- 
prise all that the Hindus lacked, and that was necessary 
to enable them to cultivate astronomy in a scientific spirit. 
And accordingly we find that they turned these Greek 
aids to good account ; rectifying, in the first place, the 
order of their limar asterisms, which was no longer in ac- 
cordance with reality, so that the two which came last in 
the old order occupy the two first places in the new ; and 
even, it would seem, in some points independently ad- 
vancing astronomical science further than the Greeks 
themselves did. Their fame spread in turn to the West; 
and the Andubarius (or, probably, Ardubarius), whom the 
Chronicon Faschalef places in primeval times as the 
earliest Indian astronomer, is doubtless none otlier than 
Aryabhata, the rival of Puli^a, who is likewise extolled 
by the Arabs under the name Arjabahr. For, during the 
eighth and ninth centuries, the Arabs were in astronomy 
the disciples of the Hindus, from whom they borrowed 
the lunar mansions in their new order, and whose Sid- 
dhantas (Sindhends) they frequently worked up and 
translated,— in part under the supervision of Indian astro- 
nomers themselves, whom the Khalifs of Bagdad, t&c., 
invited to their courts. The same thing took place also 

* See L St.f ii. 254, nally dates from the time of Ci>n- 

Kather = KevddpofWs, accord- stantius (330) ; it underwent, bow- 
ing to Jacobi, 1 . c. To this list be- «ver, a fresh recension under Hera- 
longs, further, the word harija = clius (610- 641), and the name 

Kern, L c., p. 29, Andubarius may have been intro- 

t The Chronicon Paschale nomi- duced then. 



in regard to Algebra and Aritlnnelic in particular, in both 
of which, it appears, the Hindus attained, quite indepen- 
dently ,2^ to a high degree of proficiency It is to them 
also that we owe the ingenious invention of the numerical 
symbols,* which in like manner passed from them to the 

^ But cf, Colebrooke iu his 
famous paper On tiu Algtira of ike 
ilindtts (1817) in Misc. ties., ii. 44 ^>> 
401 ed. Cowell. Woepcke, indeed 

sur la 'propagaiwn dee Chiffns 
Indiens^ Paris, 1863, pp. 75 “ 9 *)» »» 

of opinion that the act^ount iu the 
Lalita - Vistara of the problem 
solved b}’’ Buddha on the occasion 
of Ilia inarria^^e-exainiuation, rela- 
tive to the number of atoms in the 
length of a yajana, is the basis 
of the ‘Areiiarius’ of Archimedes 
(b c. 287-212). But the age of the 
Ijalita- Vistara ia by no means so 
well ascertained that the reverse, 
might not equally well he the case; 
see 7. St., viii. 325, 326; Ueinaud, 

Afim. aur VInde, p, 303. 

^81 oldest known trace of 

tliese occurs, curiously, in Piugala’s 
Treatise on Prosody, in the last chap- 
ter of which (presumably a later addi- 
tion), the permutations of longs and 
shorts possible iu a metre with a 
fixed number of syllables are set 
forth iu ail enigmatical form ; see 
/. St, viii. 4y ff., 324-326.— Oil 
geometry the Sulva-Sdtras, apper- 
taining to the Srauta ritual, furnish 
highly remarkable information ; sec 
Thibaut’s Adthess to the Aryan 
Section of the London International 
Ctuigress of Orientalists, in the 
special number of Ti'ilbuer's Ameri- 
edn and Orkmal Liicro.ry Record, 
1874, i>i>. 27, 28, according to which 
these Sdtras even contain attempts 
at sqnai ing the circle. 

* The Indian figures from I-9 
are abbreviated forms of the initial 
letters of the numerals themselves 
[cf. the similar notation of the 
musical tones] : the zero, too, has 
arisen out of the first letter of the 
word iilnya, ‘empty ’ [it occurs even 
in Piugala, 1 . c. It is the decimal 

place-value of these figures which 
gives tliem their special significance. 
Woepcke, in his above-quoted Alim, 
sur la j/ropag. des Ckiffrea Indiena 
(JoMrn. AaUiL, 1863), is of opinion 
that even prior to their adoption by 
the Arabs they had been obtained 
from India \>y the Neo-Pythagoreaus 
of Alexandria, and that the so- 
called Gt>bar figures are traceable to 
them. But against this it has to be 
remarked tliat the figures iu ques- 
tion are only one of the latest stages 
of Indian numerical notation, and 
tliat a great many other notations 
preceded them. According to Ed- 
ward Thomas, in the Journ. Aaiat. 
for the sjime year (1863), the earliest 
instances of the use of these figures 
belong to the middle of the seventh 
century ; whereas the employment 
of the older numerical symbols is 
demonstrable from the fourth cen- 
tury downwards. See also /, St, viii. 
165, 256, The character of the 
Valabbi Plates seems to be that 
\vh >S0 letters most closely approach 
the forms of the figures, Burnell 
In?? quite recently, in liis Elcm. S, 
I id. Pal., p. 46 ff., questioned alto- 
gether tlic connection of the figures 
with tile first letters of the nume- 
rals ; and lie supposes them, or 
rather the older ‘ Cave Numerals/ 
from which ho directly derives 
them, to have been introduced from 
Alexandria, “ together with Greek 
Astrology.” In this I cannot in the 
meantime agree with him ; see my 
remarks in the Jenaer Lit Z., 1875, 
No. 24, p. 419. Amongst other 
thing.s, I there call special attention 
to the circumstance that Hermann 
Hankel, in his excellent work (pos- 
thumous, unfortunately), Zur Ge- 
.schlchte dir Alatkcmatik (1874), p, 
329 if., declares Woepeke^s opinion 



Arabs, and from these again to European scholars.^ By 
these latter, who were the disciples of the Arabs, frequent 
allusion is made to the Indians, and uniformly in terms of 
high esteem ; and one Sanskrit word even — uchclia, signi- 
fying the apex of a planet’s orbit — lias passed, though in 
a form somewhat difficult to recognise {aux, genit. augis), 
into the Latin translations of Arabian astronomers ^ (see 
Eeinaud, p. 325). 

As regards the age and order of sequence of the vari- 
ous Indian astronomers, of whom works or fragments of 
works still survive, we do not even here escape from the 
uncertainty which everywhere throughout Indian literature 
attends questions of the kind. At their head stands the 
Aryabhata already mentioned, of whose writings we possess 
at present only a few sorry scraps, though possibly fuller 
fragments may yet in course of time be recovered.^ He 
appears to have been a contemporary of Puli^a; and, in 
any case, he was indebted to Greek influence, since he 
reckons by the zodiacal signs. According to Albiriinf, he 

to the effect that the Nto-Fytha- together with the commentary of 
goreana were acquainted with the raramdditivara ; cf. A. Barth in the 
new figures having place- value, and J^eime Critique^ 1875, pp. 241-253. 
with the zero, to be erroneous, and According to his own account therein 
the entire passage in Boethius on given, Aryabhata was born a. n. 476, 
which this opinion is grounded to lived in Eastern India at Kusuma- 
be an interpolation of the tenth or pura (Palibotbra), and composed this 
eleventh centuig^], work at the early age of twenty-three. 

See also Woepeke, Sur UIntro* In ithe teaches, ainongstotherthiugs, 
duction de V ArithwAtiqm Indimne a quite peculiar numerical notation 
en Occident (Rome, 1859). byrocans of letters. — The larger work 

As also, according to Reinaud's extant under the title Arya-Sid- 

ingenious conjecture (p. 373 ff,), the 
name of Ujjayini itself — through a 
misreading, namely, of the Arabic 

‘meridian of Ujjayini’ became the 
^conpole d'Arin," 

q'tie researches of Whitney in 
Jour. Am. Or. Soc.y vi, 560 ff. {i860), 
and of Bhdu Ddjl in J. R. A. jS., i. 
392 ff. (1865), have brought us full 
liglit upon this point. From these 
it appears that of Aryabhata there 
are still extant the baiagiti-SMra 
and the Arydshtaiataj both of which 
have been already edited by Kern 
(1874) under the title Aryahha{iyay 

\ as Arin, Arim, whereby the 

dhdnta in eighteen adkydyoi is evi- 
dently a subsequent production ; see 
Hall in Journ. Am. Or. Soc.^ vi, 
556 {i860), and Aufrticht, CcUcUogus, 
pp. 325, 326 : Bentley thinks it w^as 
not composed until A.D. 1322, and 
Bhdu L)djl, 1. c., pp. 393, 394, be- 
lieves Bentley “was here for once 
correct.” — Wilson, iMack. CoU.y i. 
1 19, and Lassen, /. AK.^ ii. 1136, 
speak also of a commentary by Arya- 
bhata on the Surya-SiddbjCnta : this 
doubtless to be ascribed to Laghu- 
Aryabhata (Bhdu Ddji, p, 405). See 
als<» Kern, Pref. to Brih. Sarph., p, 

59 ft’. 


was a native pf Kusumapura, i.e., Pataliinitra, and belonged 
consequently fe) the east of India. Togetlier with him, 
the authors of the following five Siddhantas are looked 
upon as ancient astronomers — namely, the unknown * 
author of Brahma- Siddh&Tda or Paitdnialia-Siddhdnta ; 
next, the author of the Saura-Siddlidnta, who is called 
Ld.t by Albi'nini, and may possibly be identical with the 
Lagata, Lagadha mentioned as author of the Vedanga 
treatise Jyotisha, as well as with Ladha, a writer occasion- 
ally quoted by Brahmagupta ;t further, Puli^a, author of 
Paulisa-Siddhdnta ; and lastly, Srishena and Vishnu- 
chandra, to whom the Bomaka-Siddhdnta and Va&Vasishtha- 
Siddhdnta — works said to be based upon Aryabhata’s 
system ^ — are respectively attributed. Of these five Sid- 
dhantas, not one seems to have survived. There exist 
works, it is true, bearing the names Brahma-Siddhanta, 
Vasishtha-Siddluinta, Siirya-Siddhanta and Komaka-Sid- 
clhanta ; but that these are not the ancient works so en- 
titled appears from the fact that the quotations from the 
latter, preserved to ns by the scholiasts, are not contained 
in them.^^ In point of fact, three distinct Vasishtha-Sid- 
dhantas, and, similarly, three distinct Brahma-Siddhdntas, 

* Alblrtinl names Brahmagupta the present only the Stirya Siddhinta 
as the author of this £rahma>Sid* has been published, with Rafigand- 
dhdnta; but this is erroneous. Per- tha’s commentary, in ih^ Bibl, Ind, 
haps Reinaud has misunderstood the (1854-59), ed. by Fitzedward Hall 
passage (p. 332). and Bdpu Deva ^dstrin ; also a trans- 

+ Lddhamay very well have arisen lation by the latter, ihid» (i860, 
out of Lagadha; [the form Ldta, 1861). Simultaneously there ap- 
however, see Kern, Pref. to Brih. peared in the Joum, Am. Or, Soc,^ 
.Sarph., p. 53» points rather to Aapiin)]. vol. vi,, a translation, nominally by 
As also upon Ld^a, Vasish^ha, Eb. Burgess, with an excellent and 
and Vijayanandin, according to very thorough commentary by W. 
Bhdu Ddji, I, c., p. 40S, In the D. Whitney, who has recently (see 
latter’s opinion the Roinaka-Sid- Oriental and Lhujnistic Studies, ii. 
dhdnta is to be assigiifd 10 §aJce 427 360) assumed “ the entire responsi- 

(a.d. 505), and was ‘‘composed in bility for that publication in all its 
accordance with the work of some parte.” In his view, p. 326, the 
Roman or Greek author,” Bha^tot- Sdrya-Skldhdnta is “^one of the 
pala likewise mentions, amongst most ancient and original of the 
others, a Yavanedvara Sphujidhvaja works which j’ii'esent the modern 
(or Asph*), a name in which Bhdu astronomical science of the Hindus 
Ddji looks for a Speusippus, but but how far the existing text “is 
Kern (Pref. to Bidh. Saiph., p. 48) identical in substance and extent 
for an Aphrodisius. witli that of the original Sdrya-Sid- 

^ See on tiiia point Kem, Pref. dhdnta” is for the present doubtful. 
U' Brih. Saipli., pp. 43-50. Up to Cf. Kern, I, c., pp. 44-46. 



are cited. One of these last, which expressly purports to 

be a recast* of an earlier work, has for its author Brahma- 
gupta, whose date, according to Albinini, is the year a.d. 
664, which corresponds pretty closely with the date assigned 
to him by the modern astronomers of Ujjayini, a.d. 628.^®^ 
To him also belongs, according to Albinini,t a work named 
Ahargana, corrupted by the Arabs into Arhand. This 
Arkand, the Sindhends (i.e., the five Siddhantas), and the 
system of Arjabahr (Aryabhata) were the works which, 
as already remarked, were principally studied and in part 
translated by the Arabs in the eighth and ninth centuries. 

On the other hand, the Arabs do not mention Varaha- 
Mihira, although lie was prior to Brahmagupta, as the 
latter repeatedly alludes to him, and although he gathered 
up the teaching of these five Siddhantas in a work which 
is hence styled by the commentators Pafichasiddhdntikd, 
but which he himself calls by the name Kararui. This work 
seems to have perished,^ and only the astrological works 
of Varaha-Mihira have come down to us — namely, the 
Sanihitd J and the Hord-^dstra. The latter, however, is 

* Albirfini gives a notice of the 
contents of this recast ; it and the 
PauliAa-Siddbiuta wore the only two 
of these Siddhdntas he was able to 


287 latter ilate is based on 

his own words in the Bi-dhoia Sphu^a- 
Siddhinta, 24, 7, 8, which, as there 
stated, he composed 550 years after 
the ^ka-nfixMa at the 

age of thirty. He here calls him- 
self the son of Jish^iu, and he lived 
under Sri - Vydghramukha of the 
6ri-Chdpa dynasty ; Bhdu Ddji, I, <?., 
p. 410. Pfithddakasv^inin, bis 
bcholiast, describes him, curiously, 
as Bhilla-Mdlavakdchdrya ; see Z. 

2>. Jf. (?., XXV. 659 ; I. St., xiii.316. 

Chaps, xii. {ga^iia, arithmetic) and 
xxviii. (huitaka, algebra) of his 
work have, it is well known, been 
translated by Colebrooke (1817), 
f Reiuaud, 9 ur Vlnde, p. 


288 Yesterday I heard of a se- 
cond MS. of the PaftchjtsiddhdutikA,’' 

I 5 uhler’s letter of 1st April 1875. 
See now Biihler^s special report on 
the Paftchasiddbintikii in Ind,Antiq., 
iv. 316. 

X In a double edition, as 
S<ii}[ihitd and as Samdsa-SaTjihitd. Of 
the former Albiriini gives us some 
extracts ; see also my Catal. of ike 
San^. MSS. in tlu Bal. Lih., pp. 
238-254. [For an excellent edition 
of the Bjibat-SaiphitA {Bihl. Ind.^ 
1864-65), we are indebted to Kern, 
wbo is also publishing a translation 
of it (chaps, i.-lxxxiv, thus far) in the 
Jmm. B. A. S., iv.-vi. (1870-74), 
There also exists an excellent com- 
mentary on it by Bhattotpala, drawn 
up &ake 888 (a.d. 966), and distin- 
guished by its exceedingly copious 
quotations of parallel passages from 
Vardba - Mihira’s predecessors. In 
the Bfihaj-J^taka, 26. 5 »| latter 
calls himself the son of Adityaddsa, 
and an Avantika or native of Avanti, 



incomplete, only one-third of it being extant.* He men- 
tions a great number of predecessors, whose names are in 
part only known to us through him ; for instance, Maya 
and the Yavanas (frequently), Para^ara, ^lanittlia,^®® ^ak- 
tipurva, Vishnugupta,f Devasvamin, Siddhasena, Vajra, 
Jivaiarman, Satya,*^ &c. Of Aryabhata no diiect mention 
is made, possibly for the reason that he did nothing for 
astrology : in the Karana he would naturally bo men- 
tioned.^^ While Aryabhata still computes by the era of 
Yudhishthira, Varaha-Mihira employs the ^aka-kdla, 
Saka-hhidpa-hila, or Sakendra-kdla, the era of the ^aka 
king, which is referred by his scholiast to Vikrtema’s era.2»2 
Brahmagupta, on the contrary, reckons by the ^aka-nrir 
pdnta — which, according to him, took place in the year 
3 1 79 of the Kali age— that is to say, by the era of Saliva- 
liana. — The tradition as to the date of Varaha-Mihira has 
already been given : as the statements of the astronomers 
of to-day correspond with those current in Albi'riinfs time, 
we may reasonably take them as trustworthy, and accord- 

* Namely, (he Jdt.aka portion of tlie names of teachers quoted in 
(that relating to nativities) alone ; the Bfihat-Sarphitd, among whom 
and this in a double arrangement, are Bddardyana and Ka^abhuj, see 
as Laghu-Jdtaka and as Bfihaj- Kern’s Preface, p. 29 ff.] 

Jdlaka : the former was translated ^ Kern, Preface, p. 51, remarks 
by Albirdni into Arabic. [The text that, according to Utpala, he was 
of the first two chaps, wiis published also called Bhadatta ; but Aufrecht 
by me, with tran.slatioii, in I. St., ii. in his Catalogua, p. 329*, has Bha- 
277 : the remainder edited by dant.a. In the Jyotirvid-dhharana, 
Jacobi in his degree dissertation Satya stands at the head of the 
(1872). It was also published at .sages at Viki ama’s court ; see Z. D. 
Bombay in 1867 with Bhattotpala’s M. G., xxii. 722, xxiv. 400. 
commentary ; similarly, the Bfih.aj- 291 .,3 matter of fact we find 

Jittaka at Benares and Bombay; in Bhattotpala a quotation from this 
Kern’s Pref., p. 26. The text of work in which he is mentioned ; see 
the first three chaps, of the Ydtrd Kern, J. R. A. S., xx. 383 (1863); 
.appeared, with tnanislation, in I. St., Bhdu D.dji, 1 . c., 406. In another 

third of the .^uch quotation Vaiiilia-Mihira refei's 
llora-Sdstra, the Viva ha- pa tala, i.s to the year 427 of the 6aka-kdla, 
still inedited.] and also to the Romaka-Siddhdnta 

-’«» This name I conjecture to re- and Paulida ; Bhdu D.dji, p. 407. 
present M.anetho, .author of the =»- Tliis statement of Colebrooke’s 
Apotelesmata, and in this Kern ii. 475 (428 ed. Cowell), cf. also 
.agrees with me { Pref. to Brih. Saiph., La.ssen, J. A K., ii. 50, is unfounded. 

P- 52)- According to Kern, Preface, p. 6 

t This 1.S also a name of Chdna- ff., both in Vardlua-Mihira .and Ut- 
kya ; Dariakum. 183.5, ed. Wilson, paha, only the so-called era of S<dlivd- 
[For a complete list and examination hana is meant. 


ing to these he flourished in A.D. 504.^^ Now this is at 
variance, on the one hand, with the tradition which re- 
gards him as one of the ‘nine gems’ of Vikrama’s court, 
and which identifies the latter with king lihoja,^®^ who 
reigned about a.d. 1050;^ and, on the other hand, also 
with the assertion of the astronomer oatananda, who, in 
the introduction to his Bhasvati-karana, seemingly ac- 
knowledges himself to be the disciple of Miliira, and at 
the same time states that he composed this work Sake 
1021 ( = A.i). 1099). This passage, however, is obscure, 
and may perhaps refer merely to the instruction drawn 
by the author from Mihira’s writings;* otherwise we 
should have to admit the existence of a second Varaha- 
Mihira, who flourished in the middle of the eleventh cen- 
tury, that is, contemporaneously with Albininf. Strange 
in that case that the latter should not have mentioned him ! 

After Varaha-Mihira and Brahmagupta various other 
astronomers distinguished themselves. Of these, the most 
eminent is Bhaskara, to the question of whose age, how- 
ever, a peculiar difficulty attaches. According to his own 
account, he was born ^ake 1036 (a.d. i i 14), and completed 
the Siddhanta-^irqmani ^ake 1072 (a.d. 1150), and the 
Karana-kutuhala ^ake 1 105 (a.d. 1183); and with this the 
modern astronomers agree, who assign to him the date 
^ake 1072 (a.d. 1150).^® But Albiruni, who M’rote in A.D. 

Z45., p. 234) — seems to speak of 
himself as living ^ahc^\^ (a.d. 995). 
How is this contradiction to be ex- 
plained ? See Colebrooke, ii, 3^ 
[341 ed. Cowell. Tlie passage in 
question probably does not refer to 
the author’s lifetime ; unfortunately 
it is so uncertiiin that I do not under- 
stand its r*"al meaning. As, how- 
ever, there is mention immediately 
before of Kali 4200 = a.d. 1099, ex- 
actly as in Colebrooke, this date is 
pretty well established. — The allu- 
sion to ^lihira might possibly, as 
indicated by the scholiast Balabhadra, 
not refer to Varaha-Mihira at all, 
but merely to mihira, the sun !] 

This also i^rees with an in- 
scription dated Sake 1128, and re- 
lating to a grandson of Bhdskara, 
whose SiddWnta-^iroma^i is here 

Kern, Preface, p, 3, thinks 
this is perhaps his birth year : the 
year of his death being given by 
Amardja, ascholiast on Brahmagupta, 

ajB §ake 509 (a.d. 587). 

This identification fails of 
course. If Vardha - Mihira really 
was one of the *mue gems' of Vi- 
krama's court, then this particular 
V'ikrama must simply have reigned 
in the sixth century. But the pre- 
liminary question is whether he was 
one of these ‘gems/ See the state- 
ments of the Jyotirvid-dbharana, 

L c. 

See, e,g., Aufrecht, Catalo^HSy 

p. 327 ^ 328*- . , , 

* Moreover, Satananda, at the 
close of liis work — in a fragment of 
it in the Chambers collection (see 
my Caial, of the San$k, MSS, Berl, 



1031 (that is, 83 years before Bhdskara’s birth !), not merely 
mentions him, but places his work — here called Karana- 
sara— 1 32 years earlier, namely, in a.d, 899 ; so that there 
is a discrepancy of 284 years between the two accounts. 
I confess my inability to solve the riddle ; so close is the 

coincidence as to the personage, that the ytij of Albi- 

nini is expressly described, like the real Bhaskara, as the 
son of Mahadeva.* But notwithstanding this, we have 
scarcely any alternative save to separate Albinini’s Bask- 
hdT, son of Mdhdch, and author of the KaTdnorsdTCL, from 
Bhdskdrd, son of Mahddevd, and author of the KdVdncu- 
Tcutidlidld!^’^—move especially as, in addition to the dis- 
crepancy of date, there is this peculiar circumstance, that 
whereas AlbMni usually represents the Indian Ih by h-h 

also mentioned in terms of high 
honour; see Bhdu Ddji, Z. c., pp. 41 1, 
416. Again, in a passa;;e from the 
Siddhdnta-diromani, which is cited 
by Mddhava in the Eldla-nir^aya, 
and which treats of the years having 
three intercalary months, tlie year 
of this description which fell ^aha* 
hdU 974 (a.d. 1052) is placed in the 
past; the year 1115, on the con- 
trary (and also 1256, 1378), in the 
future. — Bhdskara’s Lildvati (arith- 
metic) and Vija-gai[iita (algebra) 
have, it is well known, been trans- 
lated by Colebrooke (1817) ; the 
former also by Taylor (1816), the 
latter by Strachey (1818). The 
Qanitddydya has been translated by 
Roer in the Joum. As. S. Bengal, ix. 
153 (hasaen, L AK., iv. 849) ; of 
the Qolddhydya there is a translation 
by Lancelot Wilkinson in the Bihh 
Jnd» (1861-62). I’o Wilkinson we 
also owe an editim of the text of 

* Reinaud, it is true, reads Muhd- 

datta with instead of but 

in Sanskrit this is an impossible 
form of name, as it gives no sense. 
[At the close of the Qolddhydya, xiii, 
61, as well as of the Karapa-kntd- 
hala, Bbdskura calls his father, not 
Mahddeva, but Mahedvara (which of 
course is in substance identical); 
and he is likewise so styled by Bhds- 
kara’s scholiast Lakshmidhara ; see 
my CataL of the Berl Sanslc, MSS , , 
Pl>- 235, 237.] 

This is really the only possible 
way out of the dilemma. Either, 
tiierefore, we have to think of that 
elder J^hdskara ‘‘who was at the 
head of the commentators of Arya- 
bhata, and is repeatedly cited by 
Ppthddakasvdmin, who was himself 
anterior to the author of the 6iro- 
mani,*' Colebrooke, ii, 470 (423 ed. 
Cowell) ; or else under Reinaud’s 

the Qolddhydya and Ganitildhydya 
(1842). The Lildvati and Vija- 
ganita appeared in 1832, 1834, like- 
wise at Calcutta. Bdpd Deva Sds- 
trin has also issued a complete edi- 
tion (?) of the Siddlidnta-diromani 
(Benares, 1866). Cf. also Herm, 
Brockhaus, Z 7 c 6 cr die Algebra dcs 
Bhdshara, Leipzig, 1S52, vol. iv. of 
the Berichtc der Kon, Sdehe. Oe^, da* 

jLL> (pp. 335* 337) tl^ere lurks not 

a Bbdskara at all, but perhaps a 
Puslikara. It is certainly strange, 
however, that he should be styled 

^ and author of a Ka- 

rana-sdra. Can it be that we liave 
here to <lo with an interpolation in 
Albiruni f 

IFisicnsc/i., pp. 1-45. 


{e.g., b-huj = bhii, 7 ja, balb-hadr = baldbhadra) , and for the 
most part faithfully preserves the length of the vowels, 
neither of these is here done in the case of Bashkar, where, 
moreover, the s is changed into sh. 

Bhaskara is the last star of Indian astronomy and 
arithmetic. After his day no further progress was made, 
and the astronomical science of the Hindus became once 
more wholly centred in astrology, out of which it had 
originally sprung. In this last period, under the influence 
of their Moslem rulers, the Hindus, in their turn, became 

the disciples of the Arabs, whose masters they had formerly 
been.* The same Alkindi who, in the ninth century, had 
written largely upon Indian astronomy and arithmetic 
(see Colebrooke, ii. 513; Eeinaud, p. 23) now in turn 
became an authority in the eyes of the Hindiis, who 
studied and translated his writings and those of his suc- 
cessors. This results indisputably from the numerous 
Arabic technical expressions which now appear side by 
side with the Greek terms dating from the earlier period. 
These latter, it is true, still retain their old position, 
and it is only for new ideas that new words are intro- 
duced, particularly in connection with the doctrine of the 
constellations, which had been developed by the Arabs to 
a high degree of perfection. Much about the same time, 
though in some cases perhaps rather earlier, these Arabic 
works were also translated into another language, namely, 
into Latin, for the benefit of the European astrologers of 
the Middle Ages ; and thus it comes that in their writings 
a number of the very same Arabic technical terms may be 
pointed out which occur in Indian works. Such termini 

technici of Indian astrology at this period are the follow- 
ing:t muhdrind JDiUu ^ conj imction, mVct ^liU ^ 

opposition, taravi D quartile aspect, tasdi 

* Theuce is even taken the name 
for astrology itself in this period, — 
namely, tdjiha^ tdjiJca-idstraj which 

is to be traced to the Persian 

= ‘Arabic.’ 

f See /. St., ii. 263 flf. Most of 
these Arabic terms I know in the 
meantime only from mediaeval Latin 

translations, as no Aranic texts on 
astrology have been printed, and the 
lexicons are very meagre in this 
respect. [Cf. now Otto I.oth’s meri- 
torious paper, Al-Kindt ah AHrolog 
in the Aiorge’iddndisclie Forschungen, 

1874, pp, 263-309, ]>ublUbed in 

honour of Fleischer’s jubilee,] 



^ sextile aspect, ta^U 


4 ^ 

trine aspect; further, 

liadda jjj, fractio, muialldha ilcTcavdla JUj! 

fectio, ivduvdra, deterioration itthisdla and mutl 

JLxil and conjunction isarapha and 'mdsariplu 

uJ|^! and disjunetio, nakta (for nakla) jj^ trans 

IcUio, yamayd 4,^4^ congregatio, mana'd «_ i 'prohihitio 

congregation mana'd 


kamvLda reccptio, gairikamvdla inreceptiOn 


/ o ^ 

sors, inthihd and munthahd and 

terminus, and several others that cannot yet be cer- 
tainly identified. 

The doctrine of Omens and Portents was, with the 
Indians, intimately linked with astrology from the earliest 
times. Its origin may likewise be traced back to the 
ancient Vedic, nay, probably to some extent even to the 
primitive Indo-Germanic period. It is found embodied, 
in particular, in the literature of the Athar va- Veda, as 
also in the Grihya-Siitras of the other Vedas.®®® A pro- 
minent place is also accorded to it in the Sarnhitas of 
Varaha-Mihira, Narada, &c.; and it has, besides, produced 
an independent literature of its own. The same fate has 
been shared in all respects by another branch of supersti- 
tion--the arts, namely, of magic and conjuration. As the 
religious development of the Hindds progressed, these found 
a more and more fruitful soil, so that they now, in fact, reign 
almost supreme. On these subjects, too, general treatises 
exist, as well as tracts on single topics belonging to them. 
]\fany of their notions have long been naturalised in the 
West, througli the medium of the Indian fables and fairy 
tales wliich were so popular in the Middle Ages: — those, for 
instance, of the purse (of Fortunatus), the league-boots, the 
magic mirror, the magic ointment, the invisible cap, &c.®®® 

Of. my paper, Zwei Vedische 
Texte iiber Omina und Portmia 
(1859), cpntainiug the Adbhuta- 
Bnlhmana and adhy, xiii. of the 
Kaii. 4 ika- Sutra. 

Some of these, the invisible 

cap, for instance, are probably to be 
traced to old mythological supersti- 
tious notions of the primitive Indo- 
Germanic time. In the Sdma- 
Vidhdna-Brdhmana(cf, Burnell, Pref., 
p. XXV.), we have the purse of Fortu- 


W e have now to notice Medicine, as the fourth branch of 
the scientific literature. 

The beginnings of the healing art in Vedic times have 
been already glanced at (pp. 29, 30). Here, again, it is 
the Atharva-Veda that occupies a special position in rela- 
tion to it, and in whose literature its oldest fragments are 
found — fragments, however, of a rather sorry description, 
and limited mostly to spells and incantations.^ The 
Indians themselves consider medicine as an Upaveda, 
whence they expressly entitle it Ayur- Veda, — by which 
term they do not understand any special work, as ha.s been 
supposed. They derive it, as they do the Veda itself, 
immediately from the gods: as the oldest of human 
writers upon it they mention, first, Atreya, then Agnive^a, 
then Charaka,®®^ then Dhanvantari, and, lastly, his disciple 

natuB) p. 94; see Lit. C* BL^ 1874, P^ini himself was acquainted with 
pp. 423,424. — Magic, further, stands texts of this description. From 
in a special relation to the sectarian what Pataipjali states^ besides birds 
Tantra texts, as well as to the Yoga and serpents, cattle and horses also 
doctrine. A work of some extent formed the subject of such works. 
On this subject bears the name of All the special data of this sort in 
Ndtgdrjuna, a name of high renown the Mahdbhdshya point to practical 
among the Buddhists ; see my CataL ob.«ervationB from the life ; and out 
of the BerL Samk. MSS.y p. 270, of these, in course of time, a litena* 
See Virgil Grohmann's paper, ture of natural history could have 
Medicinischezau$demAthorva-Veda been developed; see /. xiii. 
mil hesondertm Bczug anf dm Tak* 459-461. 'J'he sections in 

man in L ix. 381 IF. (1865). the Atharva-Fari^isLtas are either 
— Sarpa'Vidgd ^ (serpent-science) is of a ceremonial or astrologiciil-me- 
meiitioned in Satap. Br. xiii., as a teorological purport ; while, on the 
separate Veda, wdth sections enti- othei hand, the astrological Saiphitd 
tied 2?ari?an ; may it not have treated of Vardha-Mihira, for instance, con- 
of medical matters also ? At all tains much that may have been 
events, in the Adval. 6r,, Vieha- directly derived from the old vidyds 
vidyd (science of poisons) is directly and laJcshar^as. 
coupled with it. As to the con- In the Charaka-Sajphitd itself 

tents of the Vayo~vidyd (bird- Bharadvdja (Punarvasu) Kapishthala 
science), mentioned in the same heads llie list as the disciple of Indra. 
passage of the Sat, Br., it is difficult Of his six disciples — Agniveda, Bhc- 
to form a conjecture. These PeV/yd- la, Jatukarna, Pardsara, Hdrfta, 
texts are referred to elsewhere also Kshdrapdni — Agnivesa first tom- 
in the Sat. Br. (in xi. xiv,), and posed his tantra, then tlie othei-s 
appear there, like the Valdyaka in theirs severally,^ whicli they thcre- 
the Mahdbhdshya, as ranking beside upon recited to Atreya. To him the 
the Veda. A Vdritika to Pdn, iv. narration of the text is expressly 
2. 60, teaches a special affix to de- referred; for after the opening words 
note the study of texts, the names • of each adhydya athdto . . . vyd- 
of which end in -rfdydor-faiaAo^a; kkydsydmah^) there uniformly fol- 
and we might almost suppose that lows the phrase, “tii ha imdha hha- 



Su^nita. The first three names belong specially to the 
two divisions of the Yajus, but only to the period of the 
Sdtras and the school-development of this Veda.®^^ The 
medical works bearing these titles can in no case there- 
fore be of older date than this. How much later they 
ought to be placed is a point for the determination of 
which we have at present only the limit of the eighth 
century A.D., at the close of which, according to Ibn Beithar 
and Albinini (Keinaud, p. 316), the work of Charaka, and, 
according to Ibn Abi U^aibiah, the work of Su^ruta also, 
were translated into Arabic. That Indian medicine had 
in Panini’s time already attained a certain degree of culti- 
vation appears from the names of various diseases specified 
by him (iii. 3. 108, v. 2. 129, &c.), though nothing definite 
results from this. In the gwrui ‘ Kartakaujapa’ (to Panini, 
\d. 2. 37) we find the ‘ Sau^rutaparthavas ’ instanced 
among the last members ; but it is uncertain what we 
have to understand by this expression. The gaums, more- 
over, prove nothing in regard to Panini’s time ; and besides, 
it is quite possible that this particular Siitra may not be 
Panini’s at aU, but posterior to Patamjali, in whose Maha- 
bhashya, according to the statement of the Calcutta scho- 
liast, it is not interpreted.^® Dhanvantari is named in 
Manu’s law-book and in the epic, but as the mythical 
physician of the gods, not as a human personage.®®* In 
the Panchatantra two physicians, ^alihotra and Vatsya- 

gavdn Atreyah,'' Quite as uniformly, vii,), Kpi^a, Sdqikpityjlyana, KdQkd- 
however, it is stated in a closing; yaua, Krisbndtreya. 
verse at the end of each adliydya ^Sauh'uta^ occurs in the Bhd- 

that the work is a tantra composed shya ; is, however, expressly derived 
by Agnive.-^a and rcarran;;cd {frati- from suirut, not from SuSruta, 
saTTiskrita) by Charaka. Consequently neither this name nor 

The same thing applies sub- the Kntapa-SaujJruta mentioned in 
stantially to the names mentioned anotlier passage has anything to do 
in Charaka (see last note) — Bharad- with the Su^ruta of medical writers ; 
viSjB, Ag nivesa (Uutd^ave&i !), Ja- see L St.,, xiii, 462, 407. For the 
tdkania, PardSara, Hdrita, And time of tiie author of the Vdrttikas 
amongst the names of the sages who wc have the fact of the three hum* 
there appear as the associates of ours, vdta, pitta, Uezhvtan, being 
Biijiradvdja, we find, besides those already ranked together, c., p. 462. 
of the old Rishis, special mention, Assuch heappearsin the verse 

amongst others, of Asvaldyana, Bd* so often mentioned already, which 
dardyann, Kdtydyana, Baijavdpi, &c. specifies him as one of the ''nine 
As medical authorities are further gems* at Vikrama’s court, together 
cited, amongst others (see the St. with Kdliddsa and Vardha-Mihira ; 
Petersburg Diet. Supplement, vol. see Jyotirvid-dbharana, L c. 


yana,* whose names are still cited even in our own day, are 
repeatedly mentioned:*®® but although this work was 
translated into Pahlavi in the sixth century, it does not 
at all follow that everything now contained in it formed 
part of it then, unless we actually find it in this transla- 
tion (that is, in the versions derived from it).t I am not 
aware of any other references to medical teachers or works; 
I may only add, that the chapter of the Amarakosha (ii. 6) 
on the human body and its diseases certainly presupposes 
an advanced cultivation of medical science. 

An approximate determination of the dates of the ex- 
isting works*®®* will only be possible when these have 
been subjected to a critical examination both in respect of 
their contents and language.J But we may even now dis- 

* This form of name points us + This was rightly insisted upon 
to the time of the production of the by Bentley in opposition to Cole- 
Sutras. to Vdtsya. [It is found in brooke, who had adduced, as an 
Taitt. Ar., i. 7. 2, as patronymic of argument to prove the age of Va- 
a Pahchnpar^a.] rdha-Mihira, the circumstance that 

^ ^dlihotra’a specialty is here he is mentioned in the Pafichatantra 
veterinaiy medicine (his name itself (this is the same passage which is 
signifies Miorse'); that of Vdtsyd- also referred to in the Vikrama- 
yaua the art amandi. Of the for- Charitra; see Roth, Journ, Atiat,, 
mer’s work there are in London two Oct. 1845, p. 304.) [Kern, it is true, 
diflferent recensions ; see Dietz, in his Pref. to the Bfih, Sarphitd, 
Analecta Medica, p. 153 (No. 63) and pp. 19, 20, pronounces very decidedly 

f . 156 (No. 70). According to Sir against this objection of Bentley's, 
L M, Elliot's BibL Index to the Uitt, but wrongly, as it seems to me ; for, 
of Muh, Ind,^ p. 263, a work of the according to Benfey's researches, 
kind by this author was translated the present text of the Pafichatantra 
into Arabic in a,d. 1361. The is a very late production; cL pp. 
Kdma-Sfitra, also, of Vdtsydyana, 221, 240, above.] 
which by Madhusfidana Sarasvati in According to Tumour, Malidi^ 

the Prasthdnj). - bheda is expressly vanea^ p. 254, note, the medical 
classed with Ayur-Veda, is sUll ex- work there named in the text, by the 
tant. This work, which, judging Singhalese king Buddhaddsa (a.d. 
from the account of its contents given 339)1 entitled Sdrattlia-Saipgaha, is 
by Aufrecht in his CcUalogus, p, 215 still in existence (in Sanskrit too) in 
fiF., is of an extremely interesting Ceylon, and is used by the i^ive 
character, appeals, t7i medical practitioners; see oi^this 

a?u,to most imposing ancientauthori- Davids in the Transactions of the 
ties— namely, Audddlaki, ^vebiketu, PhxLol, Socteli/, 1875, PP* 7 ^) 7 ^. 
Bdbhravya Pdficlidia, Qonardlya (ie,, J The Tibetan 'Paudjur, according 
Patamjali, author of the Mahdl>hd- to the accounts given of it, contains 
shya?), Gonikdputra, &c. It is also a considerable number of medical 
cited by Subandhu, and Saipkara writings, a circumstance not with- 
himself is said to have written a out importance for their chronology, 
commentary on it ; see Aufrecht, Thus, Csoma Korosi in the Journ. 
CataloguSy p. 256». At, Soc, January 1825, gives 



miss, as belonging to the realm of dreams, the naive views 
that have quite recently been advanced as to the age, for 
example, of the work bearing Su^ruta’s name.* In language 
and style, it and the works resembling it with which I 
am acquainted manifestly exhibit a certain affinity to the 
writings of Varaha-Mihira.^ “If then” — here I make 
use of Stenzler’sf words — “internal grounds should render 
it probable that the system of medicine expounded in 
Sulruta has borrowed largely from the Greeks, there would 
be nothing at all surprising in such a circumstance so far 
as chronology is affected by it.”®^'^ But in the mean- 
time, no such internal grounds whatever appear to exist : 
on the contrary, there is much that seems to tell against 
the idea of any such Greek influence. In the first place, 
the Yavanas are never referred to as authorities; and 
amongst the individuals enumerated in the introduction 
as contemporaries of Susruta,J there is not one whose name 
has a foreign sound.§ Again, the cultivation of medicine 

the contents of a Tibetan work on also (see Z, Z). M, ff., xxvi. 441, 
medicine, which is put into the 1872), Here, after expressing a 
mouth of Sikyamuni, and, to all wish that Indian medicine might be 
appearance, is a translation of Su- thoroughly dealt with by competent 
^ruta or some similar work. scholars, he adds the remark, that 

* To wit, by Vullers and Hessler ; “only a comparison of the prin- 
by the former in an essay on Indian ciples of Indian with those of Greek 
medicine in the periodical «/anns, medicine can enable us to judge of 
edited by Henschel ; by the latter in the origin, age, and value of the 
the preface to his so-called trunsla- former;” and then further on (p. 
lion of Suj 5 ruta [1844-50]. 448), apropos of Charaka's injunc- 

The Ciiaraka - Samhitd has tions as to the duties of the physi- 
rather higher pretensions to anti- cian to his patient, he cites some 
quity ; its prose here and there re- remarkably coincident expressions 
minds us of the style of the ^rauia- from tlie oath of the Asklepiads. 
Sfitras. J Hessler, indeed, does not per- 

f From his examination of Vul- ceive that they arc proper names, 
lers’s view in the following number but translates the words straight off. 
of/ani^.?, ii.453. I may remark here § With the single exception per- 
that Wilson^s words, also quoted by haps of Paushkaldvata, a name 
Wise in the Preface to his System of wduch at least seems to point to the 
Ilindn Medicine (Calc. 1845), p. North-West, to ITei'xeXawrts. [We 
xvii., have been utterly misunder- arc further pointed to the North- 
stood by Vullers. Wilson fixes “as West of India (cf. the Ka^jSfo-^oXot) 
the most modern limit of our con- by the name of Rharadvdja Kapi- 
jecture ” the ninth or tenth century, shthala in the Charaka-Sarphitd, 
t.e., 2V.n., but Vullers takes it to be which, moreover, assignstotheneigh- 
B.o. ! ! [Cf. now Wilson’s Works, bourhood of the Himavant (jpdrivc 
iii. 273, ed, Rost.] llimataiah iubhe) that gathering 

^ This is evidently Roth’s opinion of sages, out of which came the 


is by Su^ruta himself, as well as by other writers, expressly 
assigned to the city of Ka^f (Benares) — in the period, to 
be sure, of the mythical king Divodasa Dhanvantari,* an 
incarnation of Dhanvantari, the physician of the gods. 
And lastly, the weights and measures to be used by tlie 
physician are expressly enjoined to be either those em- 
ployed in Magadha or those current in Kalinga ; whence we 
may fairly presume that it was in tliese eastern provinces, 
which never came into close contact with the Greeks, that 
medicine received its special cultivation. 

Moreover, considerable critical doubts arise as to the 
authenticity of the existing texts, since in the case of some 
of them we find several recensions cited. Thus Atri, whose 
work appears to have altogether perished, is also cited as 
laghv-Aii\.lrihad-A.iT:\\ Atreya, similarly, as hrihad-kiteya, 
vi'idd]ia - Atreya, madhyama - Atreya, hinishtha- ktveya . ; 
Su^ruta, also as vrtifrfAa-Su^ruta ; Vagbhata, also as vriddha- 
Vagbhata; Harfta, also as trw^rf/ta-Hai-fta ; Bhoja, also as 
wni^cf/ta-Bhoja — a state of things to which we have an exact 
parallel in the case of the astronomical Siddhantas (see pp. 
258, 259, and Colebrooke ii. 391, 392), and also of the legal 
literature. The number of medical works and authors is 
extraordinarily large. The former are either systems 
embracing the whole domain of the science, or highly 
special investigations of single topics, or, lastly, vast com- 
pilations prepared in modern times under the patronage of 
kings and princes. The sum of knowledge embodied in 
their contents appears really to be most respectable. Many 
of the statements on dietetics and on the origin and diag- 
nosis of diseases bespeak a very keen observation. In 
surgery, too, the Indians seem to have attained a special 

instruction of Bharadv{^i«a by Indra. expressly termed Vdhika-bliishaj. 
Again, Agnivei 5 a is himself, ibid,^ i. We have already met with liis name 
13 comm., described as Chdndrabhd- (p. 153 above) amongst the teachers 
gin, and so, probably (cf. gai^a *ba- of the Atharva-Pan.^isiitas.] 
hvddV to Pd^ini, iv. I, 45) associ- * Susruta is hiinsi lf said, in the 
ated with the Chandrabhiigii, one of introduction, to have been a disciple 
the great rivers of the Panjdb. And of his. This assertion may, how- 
lastly, there is also mentioned, ibid.y ever, rest simply on a confusion of 
i. 12, iv. 6, an ancient physician, this Dljanvantari with the Dhan- 
Kdnkdyana, probably the Kankah or vantari who is given as one of the 
Katka of the Arabs (see Reinaud, ‘nine gems’ of Vikrama’s court, 
M 6 m, sur VInde, p. 314 flf,), who la 



proficiency,*® and in this department European surgeons 
might perhaps even at the present day still learn some- 
thing from them, as indeed they have already borrowed 
from them the operation of rhinoplasty. The information, 
again, regarding the medicinal properties of minerals (especi- 
ally precious stones and metals), of plants, and animal sub- 
stances, and the chemical analysis and decomposition of 
these, covers certainly much that is valuable. Indeed, the 
branch of Materia Medica generally appears to be handled 
with great predilection, and this makes up to us in some 
measure at least for the absence of investigations in the 
field of natural science.*® On the diseases, &c., of horses 
and elephants also there exist very special monographs. 
For the rest, during the last few centuries medical science 
has suffered great detriment from the increasing prevalence 
of the notion, in itself a very ancient one, that diseases are 
but the result of transgressions and sins committed, and 
from the consequent very general substitution of fastings, 
alms, and gifts to the Brahmans, for real remedies. — An 
excellent general sketch of Indian medical science is given 
in Dr. Wise’s work. Commentary on the Hindu System of 
Medicine, which appeared at Calcutta in 1845.^^® 

The influence, which has been already glanced at, of 
Hindd medicine upon the Arabs in the first centuries of 
the Hijra was one of the very highest significance ; and 
the Khalifs of Bagdad caused a considerable number of 
works upon the subject to be translated.* Now, as Ara- 

See now as to this Wilson, the editor, it mak^'S but slow pro- 
Works, iii. 380 ff., ed. Host. gress. (Part 2, 1871, breaks off at 

Cf. tile remarks in note 300 on adky. 5.) It furnislied the occasion 
the vidyds and the vaidyaka. for Rothes already mentioned mono- 

New ed, 1S60 (London). Cf. graph on Charaka, in which he com- 
also two, unfortunately short, papers municates a few sections of the 
by Wilson On the Medical and Snr- work, iii. 8 (‘ How to become a doc- 
qical Science of the Hindus, in vol. i. tor') and i, 29 (‘The Bungler') in 
of his Essays on Sanskrit J Ateratare, translation. From the Bhela-Sam- 
collected by Dr. Rost (1864, IForib, hitd (see note 301 above), Burnell, 
vol. iii.). Up to the present only in his Ehm. of S. Ind. Pal., p. 94, 
Su^ruta has been published, by quotes a verse in a way (namely, as 
Madhustidana (inpta (Calc. 1835-34 31. 4) which clearly indicates that 
new ed. 1868) and by Jivduanda he had access loan entire work of 
Vidydsagara (1873). An edition of this name, 

Charaka has been begun by Gangd- * See GiMemeister, Script. Arab. 
dhara Kaviri^ya (Calc. 1868-69), de rebus Indicis, pp* 94-97. [Fliigel, 

but unfortunately, being weighted following the Pikrist al-uldm in Z. 
with a very prolix commentary by Z>, M. (?., xi. 148 ff., 325 ff. (1857).^ 




Wan medicine constituted the chief authority and guiding 
principle of European physicians down to the seventeenth 
century, it directly follows — ^just as in the case of astro- 
nomy — that the Indians must have been held in high 
esteem by these latter ; and indeed Charaka is repeatedly 
mentioned in the Latin translations of Avicenna (Ibn Sina), 
Ehazes (A 1 Rasi), and Serapion (Ibn Serabi).* 

Besides Ayur-veda, medicine, the Hindds specify three 
other so-called Upavedas — Dhanur-veda, Gdndharva-veda, 
and Artha-idstra, i.e., the Art of War, Music, and the For- 
mative Arts or Technical Arts generally ; and, like Ayur- 
veda, these terms designate the respective branches of 
literature at large, not particular works. 

As teacher of the art of war, Vi 4 vamitra is mentioned, 
and the contents of his work are fully indicated ; the 
name Bharadvaja also occurs.^^ But of this branch of 
literature hardly any direct monuments seem to have been 
preserved. t Still, the Niti-^astras and the Epic comprise 
many sections hearing quite specially upon the science of 
war ; and the Agni-Purdna, in particular, is distinguished 
by its very copious treatment of the subject.^^* 

Music was from the very earliest times a favourite pur- 
suit of the Hindds, as we may gather from the numerous 
allusions to musical instruments in the Vedic literature; 
but its reduction to a methodical system is, of course, of 
later date. Possibly the Nata-Sdtras mentioned in Panini 
(see above, p. 1 97) may have contained something of the 

• See iio^'le On the Antiquity of Rdjendra Ldla Mitra in the BiM, 
Hindu Medicinej 1838. /na. (1849-61), with extracts, which. 

By Madhusddana Sarasvati in /however, only reach as f<ar as the 
the Prasthdna-bheda, L St,^ i. 10, ninth chap., from the commentary 
21, entitled ‘ Upddhydya - nirapeksh^ 

Where Bharadvdja can appear in style and matter it reminds us of 
in such a position, I am not at pre- the Bfihat-Saiphitd of Varfiha-Mi- 
seut aware ; perhaps we ought to hira, A work of like title and sub- 
read Bhdradvdja, t.c., Dro^a? ject w^as taken to Java by the Hin- 

t With the exception of some d^is who emigrated thither, see 7 , 
works on the rearing of horses and St.^ Hi. 145; but whether this emi- 
elephants, which niay perhaps be gration actually took place so early 
chissed here, although they more as the fourth century, as lldj. L, 
properly belong to medicine. M. supposes, is still very question- 

s' The Kdmandakiya NIti-6dstra able. 

5 n nineteen chaps., to which this espe- See Wilson ‘On the Art oj 

cially applies, has been publiehed by Bar* (Works, iv. 290 11 '.). 

273 . 


kind, since music was specially associated with dancing, 
The earliest mention of the names of the seven notes of tlTe 
musical scale occurs, so far as we know at present, in the 
so-called Vedaugas — in the Chhandas and the Siksha ; 

and they are further mentioned in one of tho Atharvo- 
panishads (the Garbha), which is, at least, not altogether 
modern. As author of the Gandharva-veda,* i.e., of a 
treatise on music, Bharata is named, and, besides him, also 
I^vara, Pavana, Kalinatha,^” Narada;8i8 but of these the 
only existing remains appear to be the fragments cited in 

See on this 7 . 57 , viii. 259-272. 
The designation of tho seven notes 
hy the initial letters of their names 
is also found here, in one recension 
of the text at least, ihid.^ p. 256. 
According to Von Bohlen, Da^ alte 
Indim, ii. 195 (1830), and Hcnfey, 
Indien^ p. 299 (in Ersek and Gruber's 
Encycleypmlie^ vol. xvii., 1840), this 
notation passed from the Hindus to 
the Persians, and from these again 
to the Arabs, and was introduced 
into European music by Guido d* 
Arezzo at the Vjeginning of the ele- 
venth century. Corresponding to 
the Indian sa ri gamapa dha ni we 
have in Persian, along with the de- 
signation of the notes by tho first 
seven letters of the alphabet (A— Q), 
the scale da re mi fa sa la be ; see 
Richardson and Johnson’s Pers, 
Diet, s. V. Durr imufassal, — Docs the 
word gamma, * gamut,’ Fr. gamme, 
which has been in use since tho time 
of Guido d'Arezzo to express the 
musical scale, itself come from tho 
equivalent Sauskfit term grdma 
{VrSkx.gdma), and so exhibit a direct 
truce of the Indian origui of tho 
seven notes? See Tjudwig Geiger’s 
precisely opposite conjecture in his 
Urspmingd^ Sjprache, i. 458 (i868). 

The usual explanation of the word 
is, of course, that it is derived from 
the r (gamma) which designates the 
first of the twenty -one notes of 
Guido’s scale, and which was 
‘‘known and in common, if not uni- 
versal, use for more than a cen- 
tury before his time ; ” see Arabros, 

OescMchte der Musih, ii. 15 1 (1864). 

“ There being already a 6 and a g in 
the upper octaves, it was necessary 
to employ the equivalent Greek letter 
for the corresponding lowest note.” 
'I'he necessity for ►this is not, how- 
ever, 80 very apparent ; but, rather, 
in the selection of this term, and 
again in its direct employment in the 
Sense of ‘musical scale’ a remini- 
scence of the Indian word may orU 
ginally have had some influence, 
though Guido himself need not have 
been cognisant of it. 

And this not merely in the 
Sikshi attributed to P^ini, but in 
the whole of the tracts belonging to 
this category ; see my Essay on the 
Pratijud-Sfitra, pp. 107-109; Haug, 
Accent, p, 59. 

* This title is derived from the 
Gandharvas or celestiiil musicians. 

This name is also written Kalli- 
ndtha (Kapila in Lassen, 7 . AK>, 
iv. 832, is probably a mistake), by 
Sir W. Jones, On the Musical Alodes 
of the Hindus in .,48 Res.^ iii. 329, 
and by Aufrecht, Catalog us, p, 2lo'\ 
Biihler, however, Catal, of MSS. 
from Gifj., iv. 274, has the spelling 
given in the text. But, at any rate, 
instead of Pavuiia, we must read 
‘Hannmant, son of Pavana.* For 
Bharata, see above, p. 23 1 . 

See tho data from the Nd- 
rada-f 5 ik.shd in Hang, Ueherdes Wesen 
des Vcd. Accents, p. 58. The ‘gan- 
dbarva Ndrada’ is probably origi- 
nally only Cloud personified ; see 
/. St., i. 204, 483, ix, z. 



the scholia of the dramatic literature. Some of these 
writings were translated into Persian, and, perhaps even 
earlier, into Arabic. There are also various modern 
works on music. The whole subject, however, has been 
but little investigated.*^® 

As regards the third Upaveda, Artha-mstra, the Hindus, 
as is weU known, have achieved great distinction in the 
technical arts, but less in the so-called formative arts. 
The literature of the subject is but very scantily repre- 
sented, and is for the most part modern. 

Painting, in the first place, appears in a very rudiment- 
ary stage. Portrait-painting, for which perspective is not 
required, seems to have succeeded best, as it is frequently 
alluded to in the dramas.*^ In Sculpture, on the con- 
trary, no mean skill is discernible.*®® Among the reliefs 
carved upon stone are many of great beauty, especially 
those depicting scenes from Buddha's life, Buddha being 
uniformly represented in purely human shape, free from 
mythological disfigurement. — There exist various books of 

Besides Sir \V, Jones, Z. c., see iu which, uinong otlntr things, special 
also Patterson in vol, ix. <if the As, reference is made to the Yuvanas as 
Res,^ Lassen, /. AK.^ iv, 832, and excellent painters and craftsmen, 
more particularly the special notices On pictorial representations of tlie 
in Aufrecht’s Catalogus, pp. 19^202. fight between Kansa and Krishna, 
^driigadeva, author of the Sangi- see the data in the Malidbhdshya, I. 
t;iratndkan> cites as authorities xiii, 354. 489 ; and on likenesses 
Aiihinavagupta, Kirtidiuara, Kohala, of the gods forsale in Pdnini’a time, 
Sorhefivara; he there treats not only QoldstUcker’s Pdnini, p. 228 ff. ; 1. 
of music, especially singing, but also St., v. 148, xiii. 331. 
of dancing, gesticulation, &c. Tiirough the recent researches 

On modern painting, see my of Fergusson, Cunningham, and Leit- 
Essay, Ueher Krishna's Geburisfest, ner the question has been raised 
p. 341 AT. — It is noteworthy that the whether Greek influence was not 
accounts of Hhe manner of origin herealsoanimportantfactor. Highly 
of the production of likenesses’ remarkable in this regard are, for 
at the close of Tdrandtha’s hist, example, the parallels between an 
of Buddhism (Sebiefner, p. 278 image of tlie sun-god in his car on a 
if.) exfiressly point to the time column at Buddhagayd and a well- 
of Afoka and Ndgdrjuna as the known figure of Phoebus Apollo, as 
most flourishing epoch of the Ya- shown in Plate xxvii, of Cunning- 
ksha and Ndga artists. In an ad- ^VAm'^Archcsolofjical Survey of India^ 
dress recently delivered to the St, vol. iii, 97 (1873). The same type 
Petersburg Academy (see the Bui- is also exhibited on a coin of the 
letin of 25th Nov, 1875), Sebiefner Bactrian king Plato, lately described 
communicated from the Kdgyur by W. S. W. Yaux in the Niimtsm. 
some ‘ Anecdotes of Indian Artists,’ Chronicle, xv. 1-5 (1875). 




instructions and treatises on the subject : ^21 according to 
the accounts given of them, they deal for the most part 
with single topics, the construction of images of the gods, 
for example ; but along with these are others on geometry 
and design in general 

A far higher degree of development was attained by 
Architecture, of which some most admirable monuments 
still remain : it received its chief cultivation at the hands of 
the Buddhists, as these requii'ed monasteries, topes (st'J^pas), 
and temples for their cult. It is not, indeed, improbable 
that our Western steeples owe their origin to an imita- 
tion of the Buddhist topes. But, on the other hand, in the 
most ancient Hindu edifices the presence of Greek influ- 
ence 321 ' is uniriistakable .322 (See Benfey, Indien, pp. 300- 
305.) Architecture, accordingly, was often systematically 

E,g., also in Vaniha-Mihira’s fountain-nymphs in Plate ivi., No. 
Bfihat - Saiphit^, one chapter of 46 ; while the Bayadere in Plate 
which, on the construction of statues xviii.. No. 59, from the temple of 
of the gods, is communicated from Bhuvane^vara, middle of seventh 
Albinini by Reinaud in his MSm. century (p. 31), seems to be resting 
turlTnde, p. 419 ff. See also/. St., her right hand on a dolphin, beside 

344 “ 346 . which a Cupid (?) is crouching, and 

In the fifth vol., which has might therefore very well be an imi- 
just appeared, of his A rchceological tation of some representation of 
Sui'vty of India, p. 185 flF., Cunning- Venus. (Cf. Rdj. L. M., p. 59.) 
ham distinguishes an Indo-Persian This docs not mean that the 

style, the prevalence of which he Indians were not acquainted with 
assigns to the period of the Persian stone-building prior to the time of 
supremacy over the valley of the Alexander — an opinion which is 
Indu3(5oo- 330), and three Indo-Gre- confuted by Cunningham, 1 . c., iii. 
Clan styles, of v^hich the Ionic pre- 98, The painful minuteness^ indeed, 
vailed in Takslula, the Corinthian ill with which the erection of brick- 
Qandhdra, and the Doric iu altars is described in the Vedic sac- 
mir. Kjfjendra LdlaMitra, itistrue, rificial ritual (cf, the 6ulva-Sdtras) 
in vol. i. of his splendid w<»rk, The might lead us to suppose that such 
Antiquities of Orissa (1875), h<>lds structures were still at that time 
out patriotically against the idea of rare. But, on the one hand, this 
any Greek influence whatever on the would take us back to a much earlier 
development of Indian architecture, time than we are here speaking of ; 
&c. (At p. 25, by the w^ay, my con- and, on the other, this scrupulous 
jecture as to the connection between minuteness of description may 
the Asnra Maya, Turamaya, and simply be due to the circumstance 
Ptolemaios, see above, p, 253* A St., that a specificiilly sacred structure 
ii. 234* is stated in a sadly distorted is here in question, in connection 
form.) Looking at his plates, how- wuth which, therefore, every single 
ever, we have a distinct suggestion detail was of direct consequence, 
of Greek art, for example, iu the two 



treated ^ considerable nwmber of such 

works cited, some of wliich, as is customary in India, pur- 
port to proceed from the gods themselves, as from Vi^vakar- 
man,^ Sanatkumara, &c. In the Samhita of Varaha-Mihira, 
too, there is a tolerably long chapter devoted to architec- 
ture, though mainly in an astrological connection. 

The skill of the Indians in the production of delicate 
woven fabrics, in the mixing of colours, the working of 
metals and precious stones, the preparation of essences, 
and in all manner of technical arts, has from early times 
enjoyed a world-wide celebrity : and for these subjects also 
we have the names of various treatises and monographs. 
Mention is likewise made of writings on cookery and every 
kind of requirement of domestic life, as dress, ornaments, 
the table; on games of every description, dice,* for ex- 

See Lassen, /. AK.^ iv* 877. The art of perfumery appears 

Kdm Rdz’s £s 8 ay on the Architectwe to have been already taught in a 
of the Hindiu (1834) is specially special Stitra at the time of the 
basetl on the Mdnasdra in fifty*eight Bhdshya ; cf. the observations in L 
adhydya% presumably composed in St,^ xiii. 462, on chdndanagandhxka^ 
S, India (p. 9), Mdyamata (Maya's Pd^. it. 2. 6$ ; perhaps the Sdm<utam 
system, on which see Rdj, L, M., (‘ndnwi Kaiyata) Bhdshya 

Notices^ ii. 306), Kddyapa, Vaikhd- to Pdri. iv. 2. 104, belongs to this 
nasa, and the Sakalddkikdra ascribed class also, 

to Agastya, were only secondarily * In /. Sty i. lo, I have translated, 
consulted. The portion of tlie Agni- doubtless incorrectly, the expression 
Purdna published iu the BtbL hid. ckatuhshashti-kald-kistra (cited in 
treats, int aZ., of the building of the PrasthdnU'bhcda us part of the 
houses, temples, &c. The Ratha- Artha-fidstra) by ‘ treatise on chess,' 
Sdtra and the Vdstu-Vidyd are given referring the 64 kalds to the 64 
by 6ankha (Schol, on fedty., i, i. squares of the chess-board ; whereas, 
1 1) as the special rules for the ratha- according to Ae, JRee, i. 341 (Scblegel, 
hdra. The word Sutra’dhdray ‘ raea- Rif ex. 9 ur VEivde des Languee Atiaty 
suriug-line holder,' ‘builder,’ signi- p, 112), it signifies ‘treatise on the 
fies at the same time ‘stage-man- 64 arts'? In the Dn^akumdra, 

ager;' aud here perhaps we have to however (p. 140, ed. Wilson), the 

think of the temporary erections chaluheha^htUkaldgama is expressly 
that were required for the actors, distinguished from the Artha-^dstra. 
spectators, &c., during the perform- — See an enumeration of the 64 
ance of dramas at the more import- kaldSy from the Siva-tantrain Rddhd- 
aut festivals. In this latter accept- kdntadeva's ^ahda-kaljia-drumay s, 
ation, indeed, the word might also v. [On the game of Ckatur-anga 

possibly refer to the Nata- 5 w^ra.t, see now my papers in the Monats- 

the observance of which bad to be her. der Bert Acad., 1872, pp. 60 
provided for by the Sutra-dhdraf fll, 502 fif. ; 1873, f. 705 ff, ; 1874, 
See above, pp. 198, 199. p. 21 fiF. ; and also Dr. Ant. van der 

3 -^ On a Vi^va-karma-prakdda and Linde's beautiful work, Oeschichte 
a Vidvakarmiyii-^ilpa, see Rdjendra eUe SchachspieU (1874, 2 vols.). 

Ldla Mitra, Notices ofSansk. MSS.^ 
ii. 17, 142. 



ample; nay, even on the art of stealing — an art which, 
in fact, was reduced to a regular and complete system [cf. 
Wilson, Da^akum., p. 69, on Karni'suta, and Hindu Theatre, 
i. 63]. A few of these writings have also been admitted 
into the Tibetan Tandj ur. 

From Poetry, Science, and Art, we now pass to Law, 
Custom, and Religious W^’orship, which are all three com- 
prehended in the term ‘ Dharma,’ and whose literature is 
presented to us in the Dharma- Sdstras or Smnti-^dstras. 
i'he connection of these works with the Grihya-Siitras 
of Vedic litei-ature has already been adverted to in the 
introduction (see pp. 19, 20), where, too, the conjecture 
is expressed that the consignment of the principles of 
law to writing may perhaps have been called forth by 
the growth of Buddhism, with the view of rigidly and 
securely fixing the system of caste distinctions rejected by 
the new faith, and of shielding the Brahmanical polity gene- 
rally from innovation or decay. In the most ancient of 
these works, accordingly — the Law-Book of Manu — -we en- 
counter this Brahmanical constitution in its full perfection. 
The Brahman has now completely attained the goal from 
which, in the Brahmanas, he is not very far distant, and 
stands as the born representative of Deity itself ; while, 
upon the other hand, the condition of the ^lidra is one 
of the utmost wretchedness and hardship. The circum- 
stance that the Vaidehas and the Lichhavis (as Lassen, no 
doubt rightly, conjectures for Xichhivis) are here num- 
bered among the impure castes, is — as regards the 
former — certainly a sign that this work is long pos- 
terior to the Satapatha-Bnihmana, where the Vaidehas 
appear as the leading representatives of Brahmanism. The 
position allotted to this tribe, as well as to the Lichhavis, 
may, perhaps, further be connected with the fact that, ac- 
cording to Buddhist legends, the Vaidehas, and especially 


this lichhavi family of them, exercised a material influ- 
ence upon the growth of Buddhism, The posteriority of 
Manu to the whole body of Vedic literature appears, 
besides, from many other special indications ; as, for in- 
stance, from the repeated mention of the several divisions 
of this literature ; from the connection which subsists with 
some passages in the Upanishads ; from the completion of 
the Yuga system and tlie triad of deities; as well as, 
generally, from the minute and nicely elaborated distribu- 
tion and regulation of the whole of life, which are here 
presented to us. 

I have likewise already remarked, that for judicial pro- 
cedure proper, for the forms of justice, the connecting link 
is wanting between the Dharma-^astra of Manu and Vedic 
literature. That 


as the earliest work of its kind, is apparent from the very 
nature of the case, since the degree of perfection of the 
judicial procedure it describes justifies the assumption 
that this topic had been frequently handled before.* The 
same conclusion seems, moreover, to follow from the fact 
of occasional direct reference being made to the views of 
predecessors, from the word ‘ Dharma-Sastra ’ itself being 
kmiliar,f as also from tlie circumstance that Patamjali, 
in his Mahabhashya on Panini, is acquainted with works 
bearing the name of Dharma-Sutras.^’^® AVhether remains 
of these connecting links may yet be recovered, is, for the 
present at least, doubtful.J For the domestic relations 
of the Hindus, on the contrary — for education, marriage, 
household economy, &c. — it is manifestly in the Grihya- 
Sutras that we must look for the sources of the Dharma- 
Sastras; and this, as I have also had frequent occasion 

* See Stenzler in I, St.^ i, 244 ff, 
f Yet neither circumstance is 
strictly conclusive, as, considering 
the peculiar composition of the 
work, the several passages in ques- 
tion might perhaps be later addi- 

See now on this 1, Sty xiii. 
458, 459- 

J Allusions to judicial cases are of 
very rare occurrence within the 
range of Yedic literature ; but where 
they do occur, they mostly agree 

with the precepts of Mann. So 
also, for example, a verse in Ydska’s 
Nirukti, iii, 4, concerning the dis- 
ability of women to inherit, which, 
besides, directly appeals to ‘ Manuh 
Svdyambluivab.* This is the first 
time that the latter is mentioned 
as a lawgiver. ,[See also Sdfikh. 
Gfih., ii. 16; Apast., ii. 16. i, 
cd. Biihler. On Vedic phases of 
criminal law, see Burnell, Pref. to 
Sdma-vidhdna-Br., p. xv, ; Lit. C. 
£ 1 ., 1874, p. 423.] 



to observe (pp. 58, 84, 102, 143), is the explanation of the 
circumstance that most of the names current as authors of 
Grihya- Sutras are at the same time given as authors of 
Dharma-^astras.* The distinction, as a commentator f re- 
marks, is simply this, that the Grihya-Sutras confine 
themselves to the points of difference of the various schools, 

whereas the Dliarma-Sastra 
obligations common to all.^^ 

* In the case of Manu, too, there 
would seem to have existed a 
Mdnava Grihya-Siitra as its basis (?), 
and the reference to the great an- 
cestor Maiiu would tluia appear to 
be only a subsequent one (?). [This 
surmise of mine, expressed with 
diffidence here, above at pp. 19, 102, 
and in 7 . 5 ^., i. 69, has since been 
generally accepted, and will, it is 
hoped, find full confirmation in the 
text of the Mdn. Grihyiis., which has 
meanwhile actually come to light. 
I have already pointed out one in- 
stance of agreement in language with 
the Yajus texts, in the word ahhini- 
mruhta; see L Sir., ii. 209, 210.] 

t A^drka on the Karma-pradipa 
of Kitydyana. 

In his Hist of Anc, Sansk, 
Lit (1859), Max Muller gave some 
account of the Dharma-Sdtra of 
Apastamba, which is extant under 
the title Sdmavdchdrika-Sdtra, He 
also characterised three of the Dhar- 
raa-6dstras printed at Calcutta (the 
Gautama, Vishnu, and A'asish^ha) 
as being Dliarma-Siitras of a similar 
kind; expressing himself generally 
to the elicct (p. 134) that all the 
metrical Dhurma-Sdstras we possess 
are but ‘‘more modern texts of 
earlier Sdtra- works or Kula-dharmas 
belonging originally to certain Vcdic 
Charanas.” (The only authority 
cited by him is Stenzler in I. St^ i, 
232, who, however, in his turn, re- 
fers to my own earlier account, ibid, 
pp- 57. 69, 143). Johiintgeii, in 
his tract, Ueber das Cksclzbuch des 
Manu (1863), adopted precisely the 
same view (see, €,g,, p. 1 13). IJuhler, 
finally, in the Introduction to the 

embody the precepts and 

Digest of Hindu Law^ edited by 
him, jointly with R. West (vol. i., 
1867), furnished us for the firat time 
with more specific information as 
to these Dhnrmu-Siitras, which 
connect themselves with, and in 
part directly belong to, the Vedic 
Sdtra stage. In the appendix to 
this work he likewise communicated 
various sections on the law of in- 
heritance from the four Dharma- 
Stitras above mentioned, and that of 
Baudbdyana. He also published 
separately,, in 1868, the entire 
Sfitra of Apastamba, with extracts 
from Haradatta’s commentary and 
an index of words (1871). This 
Sfitra, in point of fact, forms (see 
above, notes 108 and 109) two 

•prahias of the Ap. 6rauta-Sfitra ; 
and a similar remark applies to the 
Sfitra of Baudhdyana. According 
to Biihler’s exposition, to the five 
Sfitras just named have to be added 
the small texts of this class, consist- 
ing of prose and verse intermingled, 
which are ascribed to Usanas, Ka- 
6yapa, and Budha ; and, perhaps, also 
the Smptis of Iltlrita and ^ankba. 
All the other existing Srapitis, on 
the contrary, bear a more modern 
character, and are either (i) metri- 
cal redactions of ancient Dharma- 
SfitriB, or fragments of such redac- 
tions (to these belong our Manu and 
Yiljnavalkya, as well as the Smyitis 
of Ndrada, Barddara, Brihaspati, 
Sanivarta), — or (2) secondary redac- 
tions of metrical Dharma-^iistras, — 
or(3) metrical versionsof the Grihya- 
Sutras, — or lastly, (4) forgeries of the 
Hindu sects. — The material in vol. i. 
of Biililer and West’s work has been 


As regards the existing text of Manu, it cannot, ap- 
parently, have been extant in its present shape even at 
the period to which the later portions of the Mahd- 
Bharata belong. For although Manu is often cited in the 
epic in literal accordance with the text as we now have it, 
on the other hand, passages of Manu are just as often 
quoted there which, while they appear in our text, yet do 
so with considerable variations. Again, passages are there 
ascribed to Manu which are nowhere found in our collec- 
tion, and even passages composed in a totally different 
metre. And, lastly, passages also occur frequently in the 
Maha-Bharata which are not attributed to Manu at all, 
but which may nevertheless be read mrbatim in our text.* 
Though we may doubtless here assign a large share of the 
blame to the writers making the quotations (we know from 
the commentaries how often mistaJkes have crept in through 
the habit of citing from memory), still, the fact that our 
text attained* its present shape only after having been, 
perhaps repeatedly, recast, is patent from the numerous 
inconsistencies, additions, and repetitions it contains. In 
support of this conclusion, we have, further, not only the 
fabulous tradition to the effect that the text of Manu con- 
sisted originally of 100,000 dlokas, and was abridged, first 
to 12,000, and eventually to 4000 slokasf — a tradition 
which at least clearly displays a reminiscence of various 
remodellings of the text — but also the decisive fact that 
in the legal commentaries, in addition to Manu, a Vriddha- 
Manu and a Brihan-M.QX\Vi are directly quoted, J and must 
therefore have been still extant at the time of these com- 
mentaries. But although we cannot determine, even ap- 
proximately, the date when our text of Manu received its 
present shape,^^ there is little doubt that its contents. 

Utilised critically, in its legal bear- f Our present text contains only 
ing, by Aurcl Majr, in his work, Dae 2684 ilokae. 
indieche Erhrecht (Vienna, 1873); + See Slenzler, 1 . c., p. 235. 

see on it Lit. C. Bl.^ 1874, p. Jolmutiren (pp. 86, 95) assumes 

340 ff, as the latest limit for its composition 

* See Holtzmann, Ueher den the year b.c. 350, and as the earliest 
griechisclien Ureprung dee indUchen limit the fifth eenturv. But this 
ThierTcrdsee^ p, 14. [As to Manu’s rests in great ]iart upon his further 
position in Vardha-Mihira, see Kern, assumption (p, 77) that the Brdh- 
Pref. to Bfih, Samh., pp. 42, 43, manas, Upanishads, &c , known 
and on a Pdli edition of Alanu, to us are all of later date — an 
Rost in /. St.^ i. 315 fif.] assumption which is rendered in 



compared witli those of the other Dharrna-^astras, are, on 
the whole, the most ancient, and that, consequently, it has 
been rightly placed by general tradition * at the head of 
this class of literature. The number of these other 
Dharma-^astras is considerable, amounting to fifty-six, 
and is raised to a much higher figure — nanjely, eighty — 
if we reckon the several redactions of the individual works 
that have so far come to our knowledge, and which are 
designated by the epithets laghu, madhyama, hrihat, 
vfiddha?’^'^ When once the various texts are before us, 
their relative age will admit of being determined without 
great difficulty. It will be possible,t in particular, to 
characterise tliem according to the preponderance, or the 
entire absence, of one or other of the three constituent 
elements which make tip the substance of Indian law, that 
is to say, according as they chiefly treat of domestic and 
civil duties, of the administration of justice, or of the regu- 
lations as to purification and penance. In Manu these 
three constituents are pretty much mixed up, but upon 
the whole they are discussed with equal fulness. The 
code of Yajnavalkya is divided into three books, accord- 
ing to the three topics, each book being of about the same 
extent. The other works of the class vary. 

With regard to the code of Ydjnavalkya, just men- 
tioned — ^the only one of these works which, with Manu, is 
as yet generally accessible — its posteriority to Manu fol- 
lows plainly enough, not only from this methodical distri- 
bution of its contents, but also from the circumstance J that 

the highest degree doubtful by the these, however, we have still to add, 
remarks he himself makes, in agree- for example, from his Catalogue of 
meat with Muller and myself, upon MSS. from Gujardt, vol, iii., the 
the probable origin of the work Smritis of Kokila, Qohhila, Sdryd- 
from a Grihya-Sutra of the Mdnava runa, laghu^ and vrfcfc^/ia-Pard^ara, 
school of the Black Yajus, as well - Byihaspati, • 6aunaka ; 

as upon the various redactions it while to the colleciive titles pur- 
has undergone, and the relation of posely omitted by him from his 
the work itself and the various list — Chaturvi^atf, ShattriA^at (ex- 
schools of the Yajus to Buddhism tracts from 24 and 36 Snipitis), and 
(pp. 1 12, I13); see /. ii. 278, Baptarshi — we have probably to add, 

279- , from the same source, tlie Shadasiii 

* Which those Hindus who emi- and Shan^avati ? Tiie Anma-S’mriii 
grated to Java also took with them, is also specified in tlie Catal Sans. 

Biihler, I, c., p. 13 flf., eiiu- MSS., N. W. Prov., 1874, p. 122. 
merates 78 Smritis and 36 difF-rent + See Stenzler, 1 . c., p. 236. 
redactions of individual Smyitis,— + Sec Stenzler in the Pref. to his 
in all, a total of 114 such texts. To edition of Ydjnavalkya, pp. ix.-xi. 


it teaches the worship of Ganela and the planets, the execu- 
tion, upon metal plates, of deeds relating to grants of land, 
and the organisation of monasteries— all subjects which 
do not occur in Manu ; while polemical references to the 
Buddhists, which in Manu are at least doubtful,^^® are hero 
unmistakable.* 3 i In the subjects, too, which are common 
to both, we note in Ydjnavalkya an advance toAvards 
greater precision and stringency ; and in individual in- 
stances, wlierc the two present a substantial divergence, 
Yajnavalkya’s standpoint is distinctly the later one. The 
earliest limit we can fix for this work is somewhere about 
the second century a.d., seeing that the word ndnaha 


Wilson’s conjecture, is taken from the coins of Kanerki, 
who reigned until a.d. 40.* Its latest limit, on the other 
hand, may be fixed about the sixth or seventh century, as, 
according to Wilson, passages from it are found in in- 
scriptions of the tenth century in various parts of India, 
and the work itself must therefore date considerably 
earlier. Its second book reappears literally in the Agni- 
Purana; whether adopted into the latter, or borrowed 
from it, cannot as yet be determined. Of this work also 
two recensions are distinguished, the one as orxhad- 
Yajnavalkya, the other as t?nV/d/(«-Yajnavalkya (sec also 
Colebrooke, i 103). As to its relation to the remaining 

330 jf ijy the pravrajiids in viii. 
263, Buddhist hrahmachdrinU be 
really meant, as asserted by KulKika, 
then this particular precept — which 
puts the violation of their persons 
on the same footing with violence 
done to ‘‘otlier public women,” and 
punislies the offence with a small 
line only — is to be taken not merely, 
as Talbovs Wheeler takes it {HisL of 
India^ ii. 583), as a bitter sarcasm, 
but also as evidence that the work 
Avas composed at a time when the 
Buddhist nuns had already really 
deteriorated; cf. the remarks in a 
eiinilar instance in regard to Panini, 

L SL, V. 141. 

Cf. Johan tgen, pp. 112, 1 13. 

* See above, p. 205: the same ap- 
plies also to the Vriddha-GauUma 
liw’-book, [According to Jacobi* 

De Asirologm Indicce Ori{jinihu$y p. 
14, the statement in Ydjnavalkya, 
i. 80, that coitus nnist take place 
^ Busthe tweZaw/ rests upon an ac- 
quaintance with the Greek astro- 
logicfil doctrine of the * tAvelve 
houses ’ (and, in fact, this is the 
sense in which the Mitdkshard under- 
stands the passage) ; so that, in his 
opinion, Ydjnavalkya cannot be 
placed earlier than the fourth cen- 
tury of our era. This interpreta- 
tion, however, is not absolutely 
forced upon us, as Bv^itha might 
equally well refer to one of the 
lunar phases or mansions which 
from an early period were re- 
garded as auspicious for procreation 
and birth ; see Lit, 18731 

P. 7870 



codes, Stenzler, from the preface to whose edition the 
foregoing information is taken, is of opinion that it is an- 
tecedent to all of them,^ and that, therefore, it marks the 
next stage after Manu.* 

But in addition to the Dharma-^astras, which form the 
basis and chief part of the literature dealing with Law, 
Custom, and Worship, we have also to rank the great bulk 
of the epic poetry — the Mahd-Bharata, as well as the 
Eamayana — as belonging to this branch of literature, since 
in these works, as I remarked when discussing them, the 
didactic element far outweighs the epic. The Maha-Bharata 
chiefly embraces instruction as to the duties of kings and of 
the military class, instruction which is given elsewhere also, 
namely, in the Mti-^astras and (apparently) in the Dhanur- 
Veda; but besides this, manifold other topics of the Hindii 
law are there discussed and expounded. The Puranas, on 
the contrary, chiefly contain regulations as to the worship 
of the gods by means of prayers, vows* fastings, votive 
offerings, gifts, pious foundations, pilgrimages, festivals, 
conformably to the shape which this worship successively 
assumed ; and in this they are extensively supported by 
the Upapuranas and the Tantras. 

Within the last few centuries there has further grown 
up a modern system of jurisprudence, or scientific legal 
literature, which compares and weighs, one against another, 
the different views of the authors of the Dharma-^astras. 
In particular, extensive compilations have been prepared, 
in great measure by the authority and under the auspices 
of various kings and princes, with a view to meet the prac- 

Muller has, it is true, claimed Biililer's opinion (p, xxvii.), Maim 
(see above, note 327) for the Dliarma- and Ydjnavalkya, although only 
Sdstras of Vishnu, Gautama, and ‘Wersifications of older Sdtras,” may 
Vrt* 5 isbtha the character of pharma- yet very well be of higher antiquity 
Sdtras ; and Biihler (pp. xxi.-xxv.) ‘‘than some of the Sdtra works 
expressly adds to the list the similar which have come down to our 
texts attributed to U^anas, Ka^yapa, times, ” 

and Budha, and also, though with * This, to be sure, is at variance 
a reservation, those of Hdrita and with i. 4, 5, where twenty different 
Safikha (Vasishtha belongs pro- Dharma - Sdstra authors are enu- 
bably to the Drdhydyana school of merated (amongst them Ydjnaval- 
the Sama-Veda, see pp, 79, 85 kya himself) : these two verses are 
— the Vetla with which Gautama perhaps a later addition (?). 
is likewise associated). Still, in 


tical want of a sufficient legal code.®®® The English them- 
selves, also, have had a digest of this sort compiled, from 
which, as is well known, the commencement of Sanskrit 
studies dates. These compilations were mostly drawn up 
in the Dekhan, which from the eleventh century was the 
refuge and centre of literary activity generally. In Hin- 
dustan it had been substantially arrested by the inroads 
and ravages of the Muhammadans ; * and it is only wdthin 
the last three centuries that it has again returned thither, 
especially to Kaii (Benares) and l^engal. Some of the 
Mogul emperors, notably the great Akbar and his two suc- 
cessors, Jehangir and Shah Jehanf — who together reigned 
155^1656 — were great patrons of Hindu literature. 

This brings us to the close of our general survey of 
Sanskrit literature ; but w'e have still to speak of a very 
peculiar branch of it, whose existence only became known 
some twenty or thirty years ago, namely, the Buddhistic 
Sanskrit w'orks. To this end, it is necessary, in the first 
place, to premise some account of the origin of Buddhism 

See Colebrooke’e account of 
these in his two prefaces to the 
Digest of Hindu Law (1798) and the 
Two Treatises on the Hindu Law of 
Inheritance (1810), now in Cowell’s 
edition of the Misc, Ess,^ i. 461 flf. ; 
also Buhler’s Introduction^ 1 . c., p, 
iii. fT. 

* This finds expression, in 
the following iloka of Vydsa : “iSawi- 
frdjpte tu kalau kdh Vindhyddrer 
uttare sthitdk \ hrdhmayid yajnara- 
hitd jyotih- Mstra - pai'dhmnkhdhl* \\ 
“In the Kali age, the Brahmans 
dwelling north of the Viudhya are 
deprived of the sacrifice and averse 
from Jyotil^-&istra and in this 

verse from another Dharma-^istra ; 
“ Vindhyasya dakshvr.e hhdge yatra 
GoddvaH sthitd | tatra vtddi cha ya- 
jndi cha bkavishyanti kalau yuge'*\\ 
“ In the Kali age the Vedas and 
sacrifices will have their home to 
the south of the Vindhya, in the 
region where flows the Goddvari.” 
Similar expres^-ions occur in the 
Law-book of Atri and in the Jagan- 

+ As well as the latter's son, Ddra 

Cf. 0. F. Koppen's excellent 
work. Die lleligion des Buddha 

(1857, 1859, 2 vols.). 


Of the original signification of the word J)uddha, ‘ awak- 
ened’ (sc. from error), ‘ enlightened,’ as a complimentary 
title given to sages in general,* I have already more than 
once spoken (pp. 27, 167). I have also already remarked 
that the Buddhist doctrine was originally of purely philo- 
sophical tenor, identical with the system afterwards de- 
nominated the Samkhya, and that it only gradually grew 
up into a religion in consequence of one of its representa- 
tives having turned with it to the people.f Buddhist 
tradition has itself preserved in individual traits a remini- 
scence of this origin of Buddha’s doctrine, and of its poste- 
riority to and dependence upon the Sainkliya philosophy.®^® 
Thus it describes Buddha as born at Kapila-vastu, ‘ the 
abode of Kapila,’ and uniformly assigns to Kapila, the 
reputed founder of the Samkhya system, a far earlier date. 
Again, it gives Mayu-devi as the mother of Buddha, and 
here we have an unmistakable reference to the Maya of 
the Samkliya.®®®'' Further, it makes Buddha, in his prior 
birth among the gods, boar the name ^votaketu ®®® — a name 
which, in the ^atapatha-Brahmana, is borne by one of the 
contemporaries of Kapya Patamchala, with whom Kapila 
ought probably to be connected. And, lastly, it distinctly 
ra^s Pancha^ikha, one of the main propagators of Kapila’s 
doctrine, as a demigod or Gandharva. Of the names be-«^ 
longing to the teachers mentioned in Buddhist legend as 
contemporaries of Buddha, several also occur in Vedic 

* The name hhagavanty which is there might pei haps actually be here 
also applied to Buddha in particular, an early complimentary allusion to 
is likewise a general title of honour, Ihiddlia ! A “Pdrihshir (!)bhik.shur 
still preserved among the Brahmans Atreyah *' is named shortly after, 
to designate Risbis of every kind, Mdyd, however, belongs not 

and is bestowed very specially on to the Sdnikhy^, but specially to 
Vishnu or Krishna; wliile in the the VedanU doctrine, 
contracted form, 6/iara?(/, it actually Can the legend in the Mab^i- 

supplies the place of the pronoun of Bhdrata, xii. 2056, have any connec- 
the second person [/, St.^ ii. 231, tioii herewith — to the effect that 
xiii. 351, 352]. ^vetaketu was disowne»l by his fa- 

t Sec /. i. 435, 436, and above, ther Udddlaka because of his being 

pp. mithyd vtprdn upacharan ? — The 

In the list of ancient sages at name ^vetaketu further occurs 
the beginning of the Charaka-Saip- among the prior births of Buddha, 
hit;t,werind mention, amongstobhers, No. 370 in Westergaard’s Cataloyus^ 
of a “Gautamah Saiiikhyah ” — an p. 40; but amongst 539 
expression which the modern editor jdtakas pretty nearly everything ap- 
interpret^i, “ Banddhavisesha-Qau- pears to be mentioned ! 
tama‘vydvrittaye 1 ” But in truth 



literature, but only in its third or Siitra stage, e.g., Katyii- 
yana, Katyayaniputra, Kaundinya, Agnive^ya, Maitraya- 
niputra, Vatsiputra,* Paushkarasadi ; but no names of 
teachers belonging to the Brahmana period are found in 
these legends.^'^ This is all the more significant, as Bud- 
dhism originated in the same region and district to which 
we have to allot the ^atapatha-Brahmana, for instance — 
the country, namely, of the Kosalas and Videhas, among 
the ^akyas and Lichhavis. Tlie Sakyas are the family of 
which Buddha himself came: according to the legend,t 
they had immigrated from the west, from Potala, a city 
on the Indus. Whether this tradition be well founded or 
not, I am, at all events, disposed to connect them with the 
^akayanins who are referred to in the tenth book of the 
Satapatha-Brahmana, and also with the ^akayanyas of the 
Maitrayana-Upanishad, which latter work propounds pre- 
cisely the Buddhistic doctrine of the vanity of the world, 
&c. (see above, pp. 97, 137).®^ Among the Kosala-Videhas 
this doctrine, and in connection with it the practice of 
subsistence upon alms as Pravrajaka or Bhikshu, had been 
thoroughly disseminated by Yajnavalkya and their king 
Janaka; and a fruitful soil had thereby been prepared for 
Buddhism (see pp. 137, 147, 237). Tlio doctrines promul- 
gated by Yajnavalkya in the Vrihad-Aranyaka are in fact 
completely Buddhistic, as also are those of the later Athar- 
vopanishads belonging to the Yoga system. Nay, it 
would even seem as if Buddhist legend itself assigned Bud- 

* To these names ill -putm, which 
are peculiar to Buddhist legend and 
tiie vam^a of the ^atapatba-Br^h* 
mana, belongs also, in the former, 
the name S^riputra, ^drikdputra. 

Unless Buddha’s preceptor 
Ani^a may have something to do 
with the Ardlhi Saujdtu of the Ait. 
Bn, vii. 22 {?). The special conclusion 
to be based upon these name-syn- 
chronisms is that the advent of Bud- 
dha is to be set down as contempor- 
aneous with the latest offsets of the 
Bi-dhma^a literature, i.c., with the 
Xranyakas and older Sdtras ; /. St.^ 

iii. 158 ff. 

+ See Csoma Korosi, Journ, 
iSoc. Beny.j Ang. 1833 ; Wilson, 

AHana Antiq,, p, 212 : “ The truth 
of the legend may be questioned, 
but it not improbably intimates 
some connection with the Sakas or 
Indo-Scythians, who were masters 
of Pattalene subsequent to the Greek 
princes of Bactria.” Tho legend 
may possibly have been invented in 
the time of Kanerki, one of these 
6aka kings, with a view to flatter 
him for the zeal he displayed on 
behalf of Buddhism, 

So, too, 'Jobantgen, Ueberdas 
Oesetzbuch des J/anw, p. 112, refers 
the traces of Buddhistic notions 
exhibited in that work specially to 
the school of the Mduavas, from 
which it sprang. 


dha to a period exactly coincident with that of J anaka, and 
consequently of Ydjnavalkya also ; for it specifies a king 
Ajata^atru as a contemporary of Buddha, and a prince 
of this name appears in the Vrihad-Aranyaka and the 
Kaushitaki-llpanishad as the contemporary and rival of 
J anaka.^ TPhe other particulars given in Buddhist legend 
as to the princes of that epoch have, it is true, nothing'ana- 
logous to them in the works just mentioned ; the Ajat^atru 
of the Buddhists, moreover, is styled prince of Magadha, 
whereas he of the Vrihad-Aranyaka and the Kaushi'taki- 
Upanishad appears as the sovereign of the Ka^is. (The 
name Ajata^atru occurs elsewhere also, e.g., as a title 
of Yudhishthira.) Still, tliere is the further circumstance 
that, in the fifth hd'nda of the ^atapatha-Biahmana, Bhad- 
rasena, the son of Ajata^atru, is cursed by Aruni, the 
contemporary of Janaka and Ydjnavalkya (see L St., i. 
213); and, as the Buddhists likewise cite a Bhadrasena — 
at least, as the sixth successor of Ajata^atru — we might 
almost be tempted to suppose that the curse in question 
may have been called forth by the heterodox anti- 
brahmanical opinions of this Bhadrasena. Nothing more 
precise can at present be made out ; and it is possible that 
the two Ajatadatrus and the two Bhadrasenas may simply 
be namesakes, and nothing more — as may be the case also 
with the Brahmadatta of the Vrihad-Aranyaka and the 
two kings of the same name of Buddhist legend. — It is, at 
any rate, significant enough that in these legends the name 
of the Kuru-Panchalas no longer occurs, either as a com- 
pound or separately ; whilst tlie Pandavas are placed in 
Buddha’s time, and appear as a wild mountain tribe, living 
by marauding and plunder.* Buddha’s teaching was 
mainly fostered in the district of Magadha, which, as an 
extreme border province, was perhaps never completely 

333 Highly noteworthy also is the 
peculiar agreement between Bud- 
dhist legends and those of the 
Vfihad-Aranyaka in regard to the 
six teachers whom AjdtaSatru and 
Janaka had before they were in- 
structed by Buddha and Ydjnavalkya 
respectively ; see I, St, iii. 156, 

* 57 . 

The Kurus are repeatedly 

mentioned by the Southern Bud- 
dhists; see/. *S^^,iii. 160, 161. 

* The allusion to the five Pdndus 
in the introduction of the Lalita- 
Vistura (Foucaux, p. 26) is probably, 
with the whole passage in which 
it occurs, an interpolation, being 
totally irreconcilable with the other 
references to the Pdndavas contained 
in the work. 


brahmanised ; 

inhabitants djivray 

tained a kind of influence, and now gladly seized the 
opportunity to rid themselves of the brahmanical hier- 
archy and the system of caste. The hostile allusions to 
these Magadhas in the Atharva-Samhita (see p. 147 — and 
in the thirtieth book of the Vajasaneyi-Samliita ? pp. ii i, 
1 12) might indeed possibly refer to their anti-brahmanical 
tendencies in times antecedent to Buddhism : the similar 
allusions in the Sama-Siitras,on the contraiy (see p. 79),^^ 
are only to be explained as referring to the actual flourish- 
ing of Buddhism in Magadha.* 

With reference to the tradition as to Buddha’s age, the 
various Buddhist eras which commence with the date of 
his death exhibit the widest divergence from each other. 
Amongst the Northern Buddhists fourteen different ac- 
counts are found, ranging from B.c. 2422 to B.c. 546 ; the 
eras of the Southern Buddhists, on the contrary, mostly 
agree with each other, and all of them start from b.c. 544 
or 543. This latter chronology has been recently adopted 
as the correct one, on the ground that it accords best with 
historical conditions, although even it displays a dis- 
crepancy of sixty-six years as regards the historically 
authenticated date of Chandragupta. But the Northern 
Buddhists, the Tibetans as well as the Chinese — inde- 
pendently altogether of their era, which may be of later 
origin than this particular tradition + — agree in placing 

of king Kanishka, Kanerki, under whom 




the third (or fourth) Buddhist council was 
years after Buddha’s death ; and on the evidence of coins, 
this Kanishka reigned down to a.d. 40 (see Lassen, 7 . ATT., 
ii. 41 2, 41 3), which would bring down the date of Buddha’s 
death to about the year b.c, 370. Similarly, the Tibetans 
place Nagarjuna — who, according to the Kaja-taramginf, 
was contemporaneous with Kanishka — 400 years after 
the death of Buddha ; whereas the Southern Buddhists 


Nothing like 

3 **^ And on another occasion, in to the Buddiiistio names of the 
the Baudhiyana- Sdtra also; see mountains about lidjagriha, the 
note 126. capital of Magadha, found in Mahd- 

* For other points of contact in Bhirata, ii. 799, 
the later Vedic literature, see pp, f Which is met with so early as 
129, 138 [98, 99, 151]. Lassen has the seventh century A.D., in Hiuan 
drawn attention, in /. A/T., ii. 79, Thsaug, 


positive^eertainty, tliercforc, is for the present attaiii- 
able.^2 X 'priori, however, it seems probable that the 
council which was held in the reign of king Kanerki, and 
from which the existing shape of the sacred scriptures of 
the Northern Buddhists nominally dates, really took place 
400, and not so much as 570, years after Buddha’s death. 
It seems probable also that the Northern Buddhists, who 
alone possess these Scriptures complete, preserved more 
authentic information regarding the circumstances of the 
time of their redaction — and consequently also regarding 
the date of Nagarjuna — than did the Southern Buddhists, 
to whom this redaction is unknown, and whose scriptures 
exist only in a more ancient form which is alleged to 
have been brought to Ceylon so early as b.c. 245, and 
to have been there committed to writing about the year 
B.c. 80 (Lassen, I. AK., ii. 435). — Of these various eras, 
the only one the actual employment of which at an early 
period can at present be proved is the Ceylonese, which, 
like the other Southern eras, begins in b.c. 544. Here 
the period indicated is the close of the fourth century 
A.D. ; since the Dipavahsa, a history of Ceylon in Pali 
verse, which was written at that date, appeal’s to make use 
of this era, whereby naturally it becomes invested with a 
certain authority. 

If, now, we strip the accounts of Buddha’s personality 
of all supernatural accretion, we find that he was a king’s 
son, who, penetrated by the nothingness of earthly things, 
forsook his kindred in order thenceforth to live on alms, 
and devote himself in the first place to contemplation, 
and thereafter to the in.struction of his fellow-men. His 
doctrine was,* that “ men’s lots in this life are conditioned 
and regulated by the actions of a previous existence, that 
110 evil deed remains witliout punishment, and no good deed 
without reward. From this fate, which dominates the in- 
dividual within the circle of transmigration, he can only 

Nor have the subsequent dis- 
cussions of this topic by Max Miiller 

(1859), HisL A. S, L.^p, 264 fP., by 
Westergaard (i860), Vebcr Buddha's 
Todcsjahr (Breslau, 1862), and by 
Kern, Over de Jaar Idling da' ZukUL 
BmldhhUn (1874), so far yielded 

any definite result; cf. my/. 

ii. 216 ; LiL C, BL, 1874, p, 719. 

* Though it is nowhere set forth 
in BO succinct a form ; it results, how- 
ever, as the sum and substance of 
the various legends. 



escape * by directing his will towards the one thought of 
liberation from this circle, by remaining true to this aim, 
and striving with steadfast zeal after meritorious action 
only ; whereby finally, having cast aside all passions, 
^\'hich ai’e regarded as the strongest fetters in this prison- 
house of existence, he attains the desired goal of complete 
emancipation from re-birth.” This teaching contains, in 
itself, absolutely nothing new; on the contrary, it is en- 
tirely identical with the corresponding Brahmanical doc- 
trine ; only the fasliion in which Buddha proclaimed and 
disseminated it was something altogether novel and un- 
wonted. For while the Brahmans taught solely in their 
hermitages, and received pupils of their own caste only, he 
wandered about the country with his disciples, preach- 
ing his doctrine to the whole people,t and — ^though still 
recognising the existing caste-system, and explaining its 
origin, as the Brahmans themselves did, by the dogma O' 
rewards and punishments for prior actions — receiving as 
adherents men of every caste without distinction. To 
these he assigned rank in the community according to 
their age and understanding, thtis abolishing within the 
community itself the social distinctions that birth en- 
tailed, and opening up to aU men the prospect of eman- 
cipation from the trammels of their birth. This of itself 
sufficiently explains the enormous success that attended 
his doctrine: the oppressed aU turned to him as their 
redeemer.! If by this alone he struck at the root of 
the Brahmanical hierarchy, he did so not less by declar- 

* See Scbmidt, Bmnglun der 
Weise und der Tkar^ Pref., p. 


t See Lafisen, I, AK., ii. 440^ 
441 ; Burnoufy Introd, d VHUtoire 
du Buddhimne Indierij pp. 152- 


X Under theee circumstances, it 
is indeed surprising that it should 
have been possible to dislodge Bud- 
dhism from India. The great num- 
bers and influence of the Brahman 
caste do not alone completely ac- 
count for the fact^ for, in propor- 
tion to the whole people, the Brah- 
iniins were after all only a very small 

minority. My idea is that the strict 
morality required by Buddhism of 
its adherents became in the long run 
irksome to the people ; the original 
cult, too, was probably too simple. 
The Brahmans knew how to turn 
both circumstances to the best ad- 
vantage. Kfishna-worship, as they 
organised it, offered far more satis- 
faction to the sensual tastes of the 
people ; while the various cults of 
the siaktHi,'‘or female deities, most 
likely all date from a time shortly 
preceding the expulsion of the Bud* 
dhists from India. 




ing sacrificial worship 

means of attaining final deliverance. 

the performance of which was 

the exclusive privilege of the Brahmans — to be utterly 

unavailing and wortliless, and a virtuous disposition and 

virtuous conduct, on the contrary, to be the only real 

He did so, further, 

by the fact that, wholly penetrated by the truth of his 
opinions, he claimed to be in possession of the highest 
enlightenment, and so by implication rejected the validity 
of the Veda as the supreme source of knowledge. These 
two doctrines also were in no way new ; till then, how- 
ever, they had been the possession of a few anchorites ; 
never before had they been freely and publicly proclaimed 
to all. 

Immediately after Buddha’s death there was held, ac- 
cording to the tradition, a council of his disciples in 
Magadha, at which the Buddhist sacred scriptures were 
compiled. These consist of three divisions {Pitakas), 
the first of which — the Sutras * — comprises utterances 
and discourses of Buddha himself, conversations with his 
hearers ; while the Vinaya embraces rules of discipline, and 
the Ahhidhirma, dogmatic and philosophical discussions. 
A hundred years later, according to the tradition of the 
Southern, but a hundred and ten according to that of the 


cipline which had crept in. 
council, the accounts of the Northern and Southern Bud- 

y away with errom of dis- 
With regard to the third 

dhists are at issue. 



to the former, it was held in the seventeenth year of the 
reign of A^oka, a year which wo have to identify with B.c. 
246 — which, however, is utterly at variance with the 
equally traditional assertion that it took place 218 years 
after Buddha’s death, ^.e., in b.c. 326. At this council the 
precepts of the law were restored to their ancient purity, 
and it was at the same time resolved to send forth mission- 
aries to propagate the doctrines of Buddha. The Northern 
Buddhists, on the contrary' place the third council 400 
years after Buddha’s death, in the reign of Kanishka, one 

* This name alone might suggest the Sutra, not in the Bnlhmana, 
that Buddha himself flourished in period. 


of the Turushka (Saka) kings of Kashmir, who, as we have 
seen, is established, 011 numismatic evidence, to have reigned 
until A.D. 40. The sacred scriptures of the Northern Bud- 
dhists, which are alTeged to have been fixed at this councilj 
are still extant, not merely iii the Sanskrit originals them- 
selves, which have recently been recovered in Nepal, ^ but 
also in a complete Tibetan translation, bearing the najne 
KdgyuT^^^\^i consisting of one hundred volumes ;t as well 
as, partially at least, in Chinese, Mongolian, Kalmuck, and 
other translations. The scriptures of the Southern Bud- 
dhists, on the contrary, are not extant in Sanskrit at aU. 
With reference to them, it is alleged that one year after 
their arrangement at the third council, that of A^oka 
in the year b.c. 245), they were brought by Mahendra, the 
apostle of Ceylon, to that island, and by him translated 

* By the British Resident there, language for European science. Two 
B. H. Hodgson, who presented MSS. pretty extensive works from the 
of them to the Asiatic Societies of Kdgyiir. have already been edited 
Caloiitta, London, and Paris. The and tnanslated : the Dmnglunm St. 
Paris collection was further enriched Petersburg hy Schmidt, and the 
in 1837 with copies which the Ayya Cktr Rol Pa (Lalita-Vistara) 

causal to be made through in Paris by Foucaux. [Since then 
Hodgson’s agency. This led Bur- L. Feer, especially, has reiiclere<l 
nouf to write his great work, Intro- valuable service in this field by hi.s 
duction d VHutmre du Buddhisme Texkstir^sdu Kandjour{\^ 6 ^~Tlyli 
Indien^ Paris, 1844 [followed in the parts); also Schiefner, e.g., by his 
end of 1852 by his not less important eiiitions of the Viniala-j^aSnottara- 
production, the transhation of the ratnamdld (1858) — the Sanskrit text 
Lotus de la Bonne Lot ; see /. St^ iii. of which was subsequently edited by 
135 ff., 1864. The British Museum Foucaux (cf, also IStr,^ i. 210 ff.) — 
and the University Library in Cam- and of the Bharatce Responsa ( 1875 )* 
bridge are now also in possession of Schiefner has further just issued a 
similar MSS. A catalogue, com- translation from the Kdgyur of a 
piled by Cowell and Eggeling, of group of Buddhist tales, under the 
the Hodgson collection of Buddhist title, MahdJcdtydyana und Kdnig 
Sanskrit MSS. in the possession of Tschanda Pradjota, The ninth of 
the Royal Asiatic Society has just these stories contiiins (see p. vii. 26 
appeared.] ff.) what is now probably the oldest 

f Regarding the compass and con- version of the so-called ‘Pbiloso- 
tents of this Tibetan translation, our pher’s Ride,’ which here, as in the 
first (and hitherto almost our sole) Pafichatantra (iv. 6), is related of 
information was supplied by a Hun- the king himself; whereas in an 
gnrian traveller, Csoma Korosi, the Arabian tale of the ninth century, 
Anquetil du Perron of this ceiitur}", communicated in the appendix (p. 
a man of rare vigour and energy, who 66) and in oiir own mediaeval version, 
resided for a very long time in Tibet, it is told of the king’s wise coun- 
and w’ho by bis Tibetan grammar sellor. 
and dictionary has conquered this 


into the native Singhalese.^^ Not until some 165 years 
later {i.e., in B.c. 80) were they consigned to writing in 
that language, having been propagated in the interval by 
oral transmission only.^ After a further period of 500 
years (namely, between a.d. 410 and 432) they were at 
length rendered into the sacred Pali tongue (cf. Lassen, 
I. AK., ii. 435'), in which they are now extant, and from 
which in turn translations into several of the languages of 
Farther India were subsequently made.* As to the relation 
of these scriptures of the Southern Buddhists to those of 
their Northern co-religionists, little is at present known 
beyond the fact that both present in common the general 
■ division into three parts {Sutra, Vinaya, Ahhidhamia) . 
In extent they can hardly compare wdth the latter,^® nor 
even, according to the foregoing exposition,t in authen- 
ticity.*^® Unfortunately but little information has as yet 

It was not the Pali text itself, The extent of the Pdli Tipi^aka 

but only the oral conuneutary (a^<Aa- is also very considerable; see the 
katkd) belonging to it, which was accounts in llardy*s Eastern Afona^ 
translated into Singhalese. (See the chism^ pp. 167-170. On the ear- 
following notes.) So at lea^t it is best mention of the name Tipitaka 
stated in the tradition in the Mahd- in a Sanskrit inscription of Bud<iha- 
vaAsa, For the rest, it is exti*emely ghosha at Kanheri (in the Journ, 
doubtful how much of the present JBtmbay E. A. 5 ., v. 14), see /. 
Tipitaka may have actually been in St., v. 26. 

existence then. For if we compare t If indeed the case be as here 
the statements contained in the represented ! I can in the mean- 
Bhabra missive — addressed by king while only report. [Unfortunately, 
Piyadasi to the synod of Magadha, I bad trusted to Lassen's account, 
which was tlien engaged in the ac- in the passage cited in the text, 
commodation of schisms that had instea<l of referring to Tumour him- 
sprung up — relative to the sacred self (pp. xxix. xxx.) ; the true state 
texts (Mamma-patiydydni) as they of the case (see the preceding notes) 
then stood, a mighty difference be- 1 have set forth in 7 , *S'^, iii. 254.] 
comes apparent ! See Burnouf, The question which of the two 

Lotus, p. 724 ff. ; /. St., iii. 172 ff. redactions, that of the Northern or 

See MahdvaAsa, chap, xxxiii. that of the Soutliern Buddhist.-*, i.s 
p. 207 ; '’J'urnour, Preface, p. xxix. ; the more original has been warmly 
Muir, Ori/f. SansJe. Texts, ii. 69, 70 debated by Tumour and Hodgson. 
( 57 ^) ; St., V. 26, (The latter's articles on the subject 

* That is to say, translated back are now collected in a convenient 
again(?); forthissacredlanguagemust form in liis Bssatfs on Lanfjuaifes^ 
be the same that Mahendra brought Lit. and Rel. of Nepal and Tibet, 
with him ? [Not the texts them- 1874.) Burnouf, also, lias discussed 
selve.s, ouly their interpretation (a/- the question iu his de la Bonne 
thakathd) was now rendered back Lot, p. 862 ff,, and bus decided, in 
again into Pilli, namely, by Buddha- principle no doubt rightly, that both 
glio.sjha, who came from Magadha, and possess an equal title. Compare 
resided a number of years in Ceylon.] here I. Su, iii. 176 fl'., where certain 


been imparted regarding their contents, &c.* Southern 
Buddhism, however, supplies us with copious and pos- 
sibly trustworthy accounts of the first centuries of its 
existence, as well as of the growth of the Buddhist faith 
generally, a Pali historical literature having grown up in 
Ceylon at a comparatively early period,^®* one of the most 
important works of which — the Mahavansa of Mahanama, 
composed towards a.d. 480 — has already been published, 

both in the original text and 

doubts are urged by lue against some 
of his assumptions, as also specially 
with regard to Huddhaghoaha's 
highly significant part in the shap- 
ing of the Pdli Tipi^aka, Kem has 
recently, in his Essay Over dt Jaar- 
idling zaideUjke Bu(kLkidmygov\e 
far beyond those objections of mine ; 
but, as it seems to me, he goes fur- 
tlier than the case requires ; see Lit, 
O, Bl.y 1874, p. 719. At any rate, 

even fully acknowledging the part 
belonging to Buddhaghosha, it ap- 
pears to me now that the claim of 
the Pdli Tipi^aka to superior origi- 
nality is, after all, far stronger than 
that of the Sanskirit texts of the 
Northern Buddhists, from which, as 
from the sacred writings of the Jai- 
nas, it is distinguished, greatly to its 
advantage, by its comparative sim- 
plicity and brevity. Cf. also BeaKs 
very pertinent observations in the 
Ind, Antiq,y iv. 90, 

* The most authentic information 
as yet is to be found in the Intro- 
duction to Q. Tumour’s edition of 
the Mahdvansa (1835, Ceylon) and 
ill the scattered essays of this scholar; 
also, though only in very general 
outline, in Westergaard’s Catalogue 
of the Copenhagen Indian MSS. 
{1846, Havnias), which comprise a 
tolerable number of these Piili works, 
purchased by the celebrated Bask 
in Ceylon. Clough's writings, too, 
contain much that bears upon this 
subject : also Spiegel’s Anecdota 
Palica, Exceedingly copious infor- 
mation regarding Southern Bud- 
dhism is contained in a work that 
has just reached me, by R. Spence 

in an English version. 

Hardy, Eastern Monachim>y an Ac- 
count of the Originy Laws^ dsc,y of the 
Order of ^fendicants founded by Go* 
tama Buddhay London, 1850, 444 pp. 
The author was twenty years a Wes- 
leyan missionary in Ceylon, and ap- 
pears to have employed this time to 
excellent purpose. [This was fol- 
lowed in 1853 by his Manual of 
Buddhieniy also a very valuable work. 
— The study of Pdli and its litera- 
ture has recently taken agreat spring, 
particularly through the labours of 
V. Fausbdll (Dkammapaday 1855 ; 
Five JdtakaSy 1861 ; Dasaraihajd- 
tahoj 1871 ; Ten JdUtkaSy 1872 ; The 
Jdtiikay together with iU Commentary y 
Pt. i,. 1875), James de Alwis {Intro- 
dnetion to Kachchdyana'e Grammnry 
1863 ; Attanagalnvahsay 1866), P. 
Grimblnt {Eadraitsdu Parittay 1870), 
li. Peer (Daharamtta and others of 
these Pdli-suttas in his Textee tiris 
du Kandjour, 1869 ff.), Job. Mi- 
nayeff {PdiimokkhoButta and Vutto- 
daya, 1869; Orammah^e Palie, 1874, 
Russian edition 1872), E. Euhii 
{Kachchdyanwppakarance SpedmeUy 
1869, 1871 ; BeiMge zur Pdli-Gram~ 
matiky 1875), E. Senart {Grammoire 
de Kachchdyanay 1871), R. Childers 
{KhuddakapdUta, 1869 ; Dictionary 
of the Pdli Language y 1872-75), M. 
Coomdra Svdmy [Suitanipdtay 1874); 
to which may be added the gram- 
matical writings of W, Storck (1858, 
18O2) and Fr. Miiller (1867-69). 

348 a Northern Buddhism has like- 
wise found its historians. The 
Tibetan Tdrandtha (see note 350) 
cites as bis precursors Bha^gba^i, 
Indradatta, Kshoincndrabhadra, 


With respect now to the scriptures of the Northern 
Buddhists, the Sanskrit originals, namely — for it is these 
alone that concern us here — we must, in the first place, 
keep in view that, even according to the tradition, their 
existing text belongs only to the first century of our era; 
so that, even although there should be works among them 
dating from the two earlier councils, yet these were in 
any case subjected to revision at the third. In the next 
place, it is d priori improbable — nor is it indeed directly 
alleged — that the whole of the existing works owed their 
origin to this third council, and amongst them there must 
certainly be many belonging to a later period. And lastly, 
we must not even assume that all the works translated in 
the Tibetan Kagyur were already in existence at the time 
when translations into Tibetan began to be made (in the 
seventh century) ; for the Kagyur was not completed all 
at once, but was only definitively fixed after a prolonged 
and gradual growth.* From these considerations alone, 
it is abundantly plain how cautious we ought to be in 
making use of these works. But there is still more to be 
borne in mind. For even supposing the origin of the most 
ancient of them really to date from the first and second 
councils, still, to assume that they were recorded in 
• writing so early as this is not only prima facie question- 
able, but is, besides, distinctly opposed to analogy, since we 
arc expressly informed that, with the Southern Buddhists, 
the consignment to writing only took place in the year 
n.c. 8o, long subsequent to both councils. The main pur- 
pose of the third council under Kanishka may possibly 
just liave been to draw up written records; had such 
records been already in existence. Buddhism could hardly 
have been split up thus early into eighteen different sects, 
as we are told was the case in Kanishka's time, only 400 
years after Buddha’s death. Why, during all the eighteen 
centuries that have since elapsed no such amount of schism 
has spmng up, evidently because a written basis was then 
secured. Lastly, one important point which must not bo 

* According to Csoma Korosi, the Bliabra missive as to the dhamma-^ 
Tibetan translations date from the paliydydni as they then stood render 
seventh to the thirteenth centuries, such a supposition extremely doubt- 
principally from the ninth. ful here, just as in the case of the 

The data coutained in the Pali Tipitaka (see note 343). 


lost sight of in estimating the authenticity of the existing 
Buddhist scriptures is the circumstance that the sources 
from which they were drawn were in a different language. 
True, we cannot make out with absolute certainty in what 
language Buddha taught and preached ; but as it was to 
the people he addressed himself, it is in the highest degree 
probable that he spoke in the vernacular idiom. Again, 
it was in Magadha * that the first council of his disciples 
assembled, and it was doubtless conducted in the dialect 
of this country, which indeed passes as the sacred language 
of Buddhism. The same remark applies to the second 
council, as well as to the one which, according to the 
Southern Buddhists, is the third, both of which were like- 
wise held in Magadha-f Mahendra, who converted Cey- 
lon in the year following this third council, took with him 
to that island the Magadhf language, afterwards called 
Pali : I this, too, is the dialect in which the inscriptions of 
this period, which at least bespeak Buddhistic influence, 
are composed.®*® At the last council, on the contrary, 
which falls some 300 years later, and at which the existing 
scriptures of the Northern Buddhists are alleged to have 

* In the old capital (RKjagriha), down to «s officially under the name 
+ In the new capital (Pd^aliputra). of Mdgadiii, and which presents 
J That Pdli could have been de- special features of resemblance to 
veloped in Ceylon from an imported that dialect, rather, which is em- 
Sanskfit is altogether inconceivable. ph»yed in the inscrij.'tions of Girnar. 

The edicts of Piyadasi present The question has therefore been raised 
themselves to us in three distinct whether Pili is really entitled to the 
dialects. One of these, that of name MdgadhI, which in the Pdli 
Dhauli, exhibits a number of the literature is applied to it, or whether 
peculiarities which distinctively be- it may not have received this title 
long to the Ardhamdgadhi of the merely from motives of ecclesiastical 
Jaiiias, and the dialect designated policy, having reference to the sig- 
Mdgadhi by the Prakrit grammar!- nificance of the land of Magadha in 
ans. It is in it that the Bhabra mis- the history of Buddhism. Wester- 
sive addressed to the third council gaard even surmise.- 
is composed — a circumstance which Zeitraum dcr indischen Geschichte, p. 
conclusively proves that it was then 8711., 1862) that Piili is identical 
the official language of Buddhism, with the dialect of Ujjayini, the 
and, in point of fact, Mdgadhi (since mother-tongue of Maliendra, who 
Dhauli belongs geographically to was born there ; and Ernst Kuhn 
this district) ; sec /. 180, and {Bdtrdge zur Fdli-Qramnxatik, p, 7, 

my Essay on the Bhagavatl of the 1875) adopts this opinion. But 
Jainas, i. 396. But then, on the Pischel (Jenaer JAl, Zeit., 1875, p. 
other hand, this dialect displays a 316) and Childers {Pdli DicLy Pre- 

f articularly marked divergence from face, p, vii.) pronounce against it, 
'dli, the language which has come 


been compiled, the language employed for this purpose 
was not Magadhf, but Sanskrit, although not the purest. 
The reason of this lies simply in the locality. For this 
concluding council was not held in Magadha, nor even in 
Hindustan at all, whose rulers were not then favourably 
disposed towards Buddhism, hut in Kashmir, a district 
which — ^partly no doubt in consequence of its being peopled 
exclusively by Aryan tribes,* but partly also (see pp. 26, 
45, 178) because, like the Korth-West of India generally, 
it has to be regarded as a chief seat of the cultivation of 
Indian grammar — had preserved its language purer than 
those Aryans had been able to do who had emigrated to 
India, and there mingled with the native inhabitants. 
Those priests,t therefore, who here undertook the compila- 
tion and recording in writing of the sacred scriptures were, 
if not accomplished grammarians, yet in aU probability 
sufficiently conversant with gi-ammar to be able to write 
passable Sanskrit.J 

Agreeably to what has just been set forth,®*® it is in the 
highest degree risky to regard, as has hitherto been done, 

* The Greeks and Scythians were to be regarded as one of the schis- 
both too scanty in numbers, and too inatic sects that branched off frou) 
short time in close contact with Buddhism in the first centuries of 
the natives, to exercise any influence its existence. The legendary nar- 
in the way of modifying the Ian- ratives of the personal activity of 

^ its founder, Mahdvira, not only re- 

+ And it was evidently priests, fer it exclusively to the same dis- 
educated men therefore, who formed trict which Buddhism also recognises 
the third council. In the first two, as its holy land, but they, moreover, 
laymen may have taken part, but display so close an affinity to the 
the Buddhistic hierarchy had liad accounts of Buddha's ministry that 
time to develop sufficiently in the we cannot but recognise in the two 
interval. ^ groups of narratives merely varying 

J Burnouf thinks differc itly, //tV, forms of common reminiscences. 
du Buddh,^ pp. 105, 106, as also Another indication that the Jaina 
Ijassen, /. AA,, ii. 9, 491-493 [hut sect arose in this way out of Bud- 
see /, iii, 139, 179 II.], dhism — although by some it has even 

Beside the two branches of been regarded as of prc-Buddhistic 
liuddhistic literature discussed in origin— is afforded by the circum- 
the foregoing pages — the Pdli texts 8tance,amongst others, that its sacred 
of the Southern and the Sanskfit texts are styled, not SiUnis, but 
texts of the Northern Buddhists- — Aiigas^ and cotjsequently, in contra- 
there stands a tiiird group, occupy- distinction to the oldest Buddliist 
ing, from its original constitution, texts, which date from the Vedic 
a kind of intermediate place between SHtra period, belong rather to the 
the other two— namely, the Ardha- Anga stage, tlmt is to say, to the 
inagadhi texts of the Jainas. The period when the A ngas or Veddfigits, 
sect of the Jainas is in all probability works posterior to the Vedic Sfltras, 


the data yielded by a Buddhistic literature fashioned in 
this way as valid for the epoch of Buddha himself, which 
is removed from the last council by an interval of four, 
or, if we accept the Southern chronology, of nearly six, 
centuries. Oral traditions, committed to writing in a 
different language, after such a .series of years, and more- 
over only extant in a mass of writings that lie several 
centuries apart, and of which the oldest portions liave still 
to be critically sifted out, can only be used with extreme 
caution ; and d pri ori the data they furnish serve, not 
so much to characterise the epoch about which they tell, 
as rather the epoch, in particular, in which they received 
their present shape. But however doubtful, according to 

were produced. But there is a which is said to have been composed 
further circumstance which is quite by Bhadrabilhusv^min, author of 
conclusive as to this point— namely, the Kalpa-Sfitra, a work seemingly 
that the language in which these written in the seventh century, 
texts are composed, and which, ac- Lastly, there is a translation Ijy 
cording to the scholiasts, is Ardha- Stevenson .{1848) of this Kalpa- 
mdsadhi, exhibits a more dc- Sdtra itself, which stands thirtieth 
veloped ’ and considerably later in the list of the sacred texts. Cf. 
phase than the language of the nlsoS.J. Warren, Oro-c/c flrodsdfmst- 
Pdli texts, to which, in its turn, ige en wijsgeerige Segrippen dcr 
the Pdli scholia expressly apply /(wwag, 1875. Tlianks to G. Buhlcr’s 
the designation Mdgadhi. (At the friendly exertions, the Royal Library 
same time, there are also dia- in Berlin has lately acqiiireil posses- 
lectic differences between the two.) .^ion of nearly all these fifty sacred 
See ray paper on the Bbagav.ati texts, wiih or without commen- 
of the Jainas, pp. 441. 373 . 39 ^ taries, and in good ohl MSS., so 
IT., 416. To the eleven principal that we may hope soon to be 
Angas have to be added a large better informed regarding them.— 
number of other writings, styled But the Jainas have also a great sig- 
Updnga, Mdla-Sittra , Kalpa-SAtra, nificance in connection with Sanskrit 
4 c. An enumeration of the entire literature, more especially for gram- 
set, showing a total of fifty work.s, mar and lexicography, as well as on 
consisting of about 600,000 Hokas, account of the histoncal and legend- 
may be seen in Rdjendra Ldia arymatter which they have preserved 

Mitra’s Notices of Sanskrit MSS., (see above, p. 214, and cf. my 
iii. 67 ff., 1874. Of these texts— paper on the Satruip java Mdhdtmya, 

our knowledge of the Jainas is 1858). One of their most honoured 
otherwise derived from Brahmanic names is that of Hem.achandr.i, who 
sources only — all that has hitherto flourished in the time of the Gur- 
been published is a fragment of jara prince Kumdraptlla (1088-1172). 
the fifth Afiga or Bhagav.ati-Sutra, Under the title Yoga-Sdstra he corn- 
dating perhaps from the first cen- posed a compendi\nn of the Jaina 
tuiies of our era, edited by myself doctrines in twelve pi'okdms, the 
(1866-67). In 7 . St., X. 2546". fir8tfourofwhich,treatingoftheir 
(1867), I have also given an account ethics, have recently Ijeen edited 
of the SArya-prajnapti, or seventh and translated Viy Rrnst 'Windisch 
Updnga - Sdtra, a commentary on (Z. D M. (7., xxviii., 1 S 5 ff, i 874 )s 


this view, are the validity and authority of tliese writings 
in reference to the subjects which they have hitherto been 
taken to illustrate, they are nevertheless important, on 
the other hand, for the history of the inner development 
of Buddhism itself ; though even here, of course, tlieir trust- 
worthiness is altogether relative. For the many marvel- 
lous stories they recount both of Buddha himself and of 
his disciples and other adherents, as well as the extravagant 
mythology gradually developed in them, produce upon the 
whole the impression of a wild and formless chaos of fan- 
tastic inventions. 

Our chief object must now, of course, be to establish a 
relative chronology and order of seq^uence amongst these 
various writings — a task which Burnonf, whose researches 
are our sole authority on the subject,* also set himself, 
and which he has executed wdtli great judgment and 
tolerable conclusiveness. And, first, of the S'dtras, or 
accounts of Buddha himself. Burnouf divides these into 
two classes : the simple S'&tras, and the so-called Malta- 
vaipulya- or Malidydna-S'&tras, which he declares to be 
the more modern of the two in point of language, form, 
and doctrine. As far as the latter point is concerned, he 
is no doubt right. For, in the first place, in the Maha- 
vaipulya-Siitras Buddha appears almost exclusively sur- 
rounded by gods and Bodhisattvas (beings peculiar to the 
Buddhistic mythology) ; whereas in the simple Sdtras it 
is human beings who mostly form his following, with 
whom gods are only now and then associated. And, in 
the second place, the simple SiUras do not exhibit any 
trace of those doctrines which are not common Buddhistic 
property, but belong to the Northern Buddhists only, as, 
for example, the worship of Amitabha, Maiiju^rf, Avaloki- 
te^vara, Adibuddlia,t and the Dhyanibuddhas ; and further, 
do not contain any trace of mystic spells and magic 
formulas, all of which are found, and in abundance, in the 

* I cannot refrain from express- turo death is an irreparable loss to 
ing here, in a few words at least, learning, as well as to all who knew 
tny sincere and profound sorrow him, and, which is the same thing, 
that now, as these sheets, wliich I revered and loved him. 
would so gladly have submitted to + The word is finind in a totally 
his judgment, are passing through different sense in those portions of 
the press, Eugene Burnouf has been the Mdndukyopanishad which are 
taken from among us. His prema- due to Qau^apiida, 



Mahavaipulya-S\itras only. But whether the circumstance 
tliat the language of the lengthy poetical pieces, which 
are inserted with special frequency in these last, appears 
in a much more degenerated form — to wit, a medley of 
Sanskrit, Pmkrit, and Pali — than is the case Avitli tlie 
prose portions, is to be taken as a proof of the posteriority 
of the Mahavaipulya-Siitras, does not seem to be quite so 
certain as yet. Do these poetical portions, then, really 
agree so completely, in form and substance, Avith the 
prose text in respect to the several points just instanced, 
that they may be regarded as merely an amplification or 
recapitulation of it ? Or are they not rather distinguished 
from it precisely in these points, so that we might regard 
them as fragments of older traditions handed down in 
verse, exactly like the analogous pieces Avhich occur so 
often in the Brdhmanaa ? * In the latter case Ave should 
have to regard them as proof, rather, that the Buddhist 
legends, <Src., were not originally composed in Sanskrit, 
but in vernacular dialects. From the account of the 

^ We must be content with simply very copious notes. — The conjecture 
putting the question, aa wc arc still expressed above as to tho poetical 
unfortunately without the Sanskrit portions had previously been ad- 
text of even a single one of these vanced — although when I wrote I 
S&tras; the sole exception being au wa.H not aware of the fact — in the 
insignificant fragment from the Joum, Soc, Benfj.y 1S51, p, 283, 
Laliia'Viatara^ oitc of the Mahdvai* sec I, St.^ iii. I40. It was subse- 
pulya-Sutras, communicated by Fou- quently worked out in greater 
caux at the end of his edition of the detail by K^l^endra L. Mitra, in a 
Tibetan translatiou of this work, special essay on the dialect of these 
[The entire text of the lialita- ^Ihifs, likewise in Journ. As, Soc^ 
vUtaro, in twenty-seyen chapters, (1854, Ko, 6). Here the date 

has since appeared in the^tif. Ind,^ of their composition is oven carried 
edited by Edjendra Ldla Mitra buck to the period immediately suc- 
(1853 ffl); the translation breaks cceding Buddha's death, see Muir, 
off at chapter iii. Foucaux pub- Orig, S, Texts, ii.® 115 ff. Kern, 
lished the fourth chapter of the Over de JaarUllmg^ 108 ff., does 
5 acf-ef/tarma-pu^arU:a in 1852, and not sec in these Gdthdsany peculiar 
Leon Fecr an Avnddna, named dialect^ but merely later versions of 
Pratihdrga^ in 1867. Lastly, tho slanziiH originally composed in pure 
JTdran^o-v^Aa, a terribly in^ted I'rdkrit. Lastly, Edward Muller, in 
Mahdydna-Sfltra, in hononr of Avu- his trad, Dcr Diahkt der Gdthd des 
lokitesvara, has been edited by Lalita-vist<ira (Weimar, 1874) per- 
Satyavrala Sdmddrami (Calc,, 1873), ceives in ibem the work of poets 
A translation of tho Lalita-vistara, who were not quite at home in 
begun by S, Lefmann in 1874, Sanskpit, and who extended to it 
embraces, so far, the hrst five the laxucss of their own verna* 
chapters, and is accompanied with cular. 



Chinese traveller, Fa Hiau, who made a pilgrimage from 
China to India and back in a.d. 399-414, it would ap- 
pear 'that the Mahdvaipulya-Sutras were then already 
pretty widely diffused, since he mentions several of the 
doctrines peculiar to them as extensively studied.^®® 

Of the simple Siitras, it is at least possible, in the ab- 
sence of evidence, that such as are concerned solely with 
Buddha’s personality may be more ancient than those 
relating also to persons who lived some hundreds of years 
later; but beyond this we cannot at present determine 
anything. Their contents are of a somewhat multifarious 
description, and for the several divisions we also find spe- 
cial technical designations.* They contain either simple 
legends, styled Ityiihta and V^ydlcarana (corresponding to 

880 accounts of Fa Hian are tions, would of course be of great 
far surpnssed in moment by those importance. Of one of these works, 
of Hiuan Thsang, who travelled a version of the Ahhiniahhramana- 
over India in the years 629-645 a.d. Sdtnty a complete translation has 
Of special importance also are the recently been published by Beal, 
Chinese translations of Buddhistic under the title, The Romantic Lc- 
works, which are nearly all based yend of ^dkya Buddha^ 1875. The 
upon the texts of the Northern special points of relation here found 
Buddhists, and some of which pro* to Christian legendsare very striking, 
fess to be very ancient. Of four The question which party was the 
such translations of the Lalita- borrower Beal properly leaves un- 
vistana, the first is said to have determined, yet in all likelihood we 
been made at a date so early as have here simply a similar case to 
A.D, 70-76, the second in A.D. 308, that of the appropriation of Christian 
and tile third in 652; see on this legends by the wor.^hippers of Kpsh- 
/. iii. 140, viii. 326. Similarly, na. — Highly important for the his- 
the Sad-dharma-pun^arika is said to tory of Northern Buddhism is 
have been thrice translated; first W, Wassiljew’s work, drawn from 
in A.D. 280, next in a.d. 397-402, Tibeto-Chinese sources, Dcr Bud- 
and again in a.d. 60 1 -605. Beal, in dhismus^ i860, as also Tdrandtha’s 
the/nc£ia7i 90, 91, mentions Hi.'^tory of Buddhism in India, a 
not only a trauslutioii of the Brah- work composed so late as 1608, but 
majdla-Sutra of the year a.d. 420, resting upon older, and in part 
but also a whole set of fifty Sdtras Sanskrit, authorities ; rendered into 
(amrnigst them, the Russian by 'Wassiljew, — 'i'ihetan 

“ translated at dilferent dates, from text, with German version, by 
A.D. 70 to 600, and by various Schiefner, 1869; cf. also Lassen, 
scholars, all of them from Sanskrit /. AK.^ ii. 6, note, 
or Pdli,” — all, therefore, from the * According to Spiegel, in his iv- 
Tndian original, — whereas the trans- view, of which I have frequently 
lations of later times were mostly availed myself here, of Bunion f’s 
derived through the medium of the weirk, in the Jahrh, fiir xciss. KritUc, 
Tibetan. For the criticism of the 1845, p- 547 > of these names 
respective texts, fuller particulars are also found among the Southern 
of these, in part so ancient, transla- Buddhists. 




the Itihasa-Purdnas in the Brahmanas) ; or legends in the 
form of parables, styled Amddna, in which we find many 
elements of the later animal- fables or further, tales of 
presages oxid viond&vB, Adbhuta-dharma ; or again, single 
stanzas or songs of several stanzas {Geya and Gdthd) serv- 
ing to corroborate previous statements; or lastly, special 
instruction in, and discussion of, definite topics, denomi- 
nated Upade^a and Niddna. All these reappear in a 
similar way, only in a much more antique guise and under 
dificrent names,* in the Brahmanas and Aranyakas, as 
well as in the prose legends interspersed here and there 
throughout the Maha-Bharata, which in style also (though 
not in language) offer the greatest resemblance to these 
Buddhistic Siitras. Quite peculiar to these latter,t how- 
ever, are the passages called Jdtakas, which treat of the 
prior births of Buddha and the Bodhisattvas. 

Now those data in the Stitras wliich have hitherto been 
taken as valid for Buddha’s time, but which we can only 
consider as valid, primarily, for the time when the Sfitras 
were composed, are chiefly of a kind bearing upon the his- 
tory of the Indian religion. For just as Buddha recog- 
nised the existence of caste, so, too, he naturally recognised 
the then existing Hindu Pantheon. J But it must not by 
any means be imagined that in Buddha’s time this Pan- 
theon had attained to that phase of development which 
we here find in the Siitras, assuming that we follow the 

From the Chinese traiislation 
Stan. Julien bae published quite a 
collection of such stories, for the 
most part very short (/.<« Avaddnm, 
Contes et A'pologues Indiens^ 1859). 
The high importance of these, as 
well as of the Buddhistic Jdtaka and 
other stories generally, in the lite- 
rature of the fable and fairy-tale, is 
shown in full relief by Benfey in the 
introduction to his translation of tho 

* Only Qdtbd and Upade^a (Ade& 
at least) occur also in the Brdh» 


4 • 

t Although connecting links are 
found hero and there in the Mabd- 
Bhdrat aalso, especially in the twelfth 
book. Indeed, many of the Buddhist 

legends stand distinctly related to 
corre8i>oDding Brahmanic popular 
tales and legends, which they have 
simply transformed [or conversely, 
into which they have themselves 
been transformed] to suit the object 
in view, 

X Lassen's assertion (/, AA^, ii, 
453) that Buddha recognised no 
gods ” refers only to the circum- 
stance that they too are regarded by 
him as subjected to the eternal suc- 
cession of existence ; their existence 
itself he in no way denied, for in the 
doctrines put into his in*)uth there 
is constant reference to them. [Ho 
abolished their significance, how- 
ever, as he did that of caste.] 


Southern chronology and place Buddha in tlie sixth cen- 
tury B.C., that is, doubtless, in the period of the Brahinanas. 
— works in which a totally different Pantheon prevails. 
Ihrt if, on the other hand, he did not teach until the fourth 
century B.C., as must be the case if the assertion of the 
Tibetans and Chinese be correct, to the effect that the 
third council took place under Kanishka (who lived a.d. 
40), four hundred years after Buddha's death — and this 
view is favoured by the circumstance that of the names of 
teachers who are mentioned as contemporaries of Buddha, 
such as reappear in the Brahmanical writings all belong 
to the literature of the Vedic Siitras, not to that of the 
Brahinanas — there would at least be a greater possibility, 
dj 'priori^ that the Pantheon found in the Buddhistic Sutras, 
together with similar data, might have some validity 
for the time of Buddha, which on tliis supposition would 
be much nearer to them. The details of the subject are 
briefly these. The Yakshas, Garudas, Kinnaras,®*^ so often 
mentioned in these Siitras, are still quite unknown in 
the Brahinanas: the name Ddnava, too, occurs but sel- 
dom (once as an epithet of Vritra, a second time as an epi- 
thet of Sushna), and never in the plural to designate 
the Asuias generally nor are the gods ever styled 
Suras there.^ The names of the Nagas and Mahoragas 
are never mentioned,* although serpent- worship itself 
{saipa-vidyd) is repeatedly referred to;t the Kumbhan- 

352 Whore the Kinnaras and their mention of the term in Nir., iii, 8, 

wives appear as ‘heavenly choris- is patently an interpolation, as it is 
ters,* as, in the Meghaduta, Ka- quite foreign to the Vedic texts, 
ghuvaA:^, and Mahd-Bhdrata, Icon- * “In the sense of fdejihant the 
jecture the wonl to be a popular word ruiya occurs once in the Vfihad- 
etymological adaptation from the Aranyaka, Mddhy., i. l. 24'’ (Er- 
Greek Kivvpdj although the latter is rata, first German ed,). [Also in tlie 
propeily only used of mournful, Ait, Br., viii, 22 ; whereas in the 
plaintive tones : hirtinara itself is Sat. Br., xi. 2. 7. 12, mahdndga is 
formed after the model of hirfi' better interpreted, with Sdyana, as 
f>uTusha, "serpent,* The antiquity of this 

353 This is a mistake : the Ddnus, latter meaning is favoured by ety* 
Udnavas, appear even in the Rik ; Tuohigy, cf, Engl, mohe ; see Kuhn's 
nay, the former in the Avesta as ZeUsi'hrift, ix. 233, 234.] 

well ; see § 73; Parrart^. f the Atiiarva - Saipliitd, in 

^•> § 37> 38 (here as earthly foes?) particnlur, many prayers are ad- 
!Sura is a bastard formation dressed to the Aa?'pas; in the 5 ^at. 
from asura, resting on a inisunder- Br. they are once identified with the 
standing of the word, wliich was lokas : can the term have originally 
WTOitgly analysed into a-iu/ra. The denoted ‘ the stars’ and other spirits 


das * too, are absent. This lack of allusion in the Bralimanas 
to any of tliese genii miglit be explained by supposing them 
lo have been principally the divinities of the inferior classes 
of the people, to which classes Buddha specially addressed 
himself, and to wliose conceptions and range of ideas he 
was therefore obliged lo have particular regard. In this 
there jnay be a great deal of truth, but the remaining cycle 
of deities, also, which appears in the Buddhistic Svitras, 
is completely that belonging to the epic poetry. In the 
Brahmanas, on the contrary, the name of Kuvera, for in- 
stance, is only mentioned once t (and that in the Brahmana 
of the White Yajus) ; ^iva and ^amkara only occur along 
with other appellative epithets of Eudra, and are never 
employed alone as proper names to denote him ; the name 
of Narayana, again, is of extremely rare occurrence, whilst 
6akra,^^ Vasava,^^ Hari, Upendra, Janardana, Pitamaha, 
are totally unknown. We thus perceive that the Buddhistic 
Sdtras, in all of which these names are prevalent, repre- 

of the air? [Serpent* worship has 
unquestionably mythological, sym- 
bolical relations j but, on the other 
hand,, it has also a thoroughly real- 
istic background.] The Maitrdyani- 
Upunishad docs, indeed, mention 
the Suras, Yakshas, and Uragas ; hut 
this Upanisbad belongs (see p, 98) 
altogether to the later period. It is 
allied to these Buddiiistic Sdtras in 
content®, and probably also in age, 

* A kind of dwarfs with ‘testicles 

Indra, Sakra occurs in the ]Rik even, 
but it is there employed of other 
gods as well. 

As an epithet of Indra (but 
not as a name for him) V^sava oe. 
curs once in Ath. S., vi. 82. 1. In 
the Nirukti also, xii. 41, it appears 
in direct connection with him, but at 
the same time also with Agni ; indeed, 
it is wit!) Agni and not witli India 
that the Vasus arc chiefly associated 
in theBrilhmanas ; see /. St,y v. 240, 

as large as jars' (?). In the later 
Bnihmanical writings they are 
styled Kuihmdnda^^ Kiitkradf^as 
( ‘ gourd ' ? ) .; see also Mahldhara 
on Vi(j. Saiph., xx. 14. [Cf. the 
Kufiibha-mudik(u in Ath., viii. 6. 15, 
xi. 9, 17, and perhaps also the rfjVna- 
devm in Rik, vii. 21, 5, x. 99. 3 ; 
Roth on Nir.,p. 47.], 

+ The Taittiriya-Ara^yaka, which 
contains several of these names, can- 


t The Mdra so frequentlymenlion- 
ed would almost appear to be a purely 
Buddhistic invention ; in Bnlhma- 
^ical writings I have nowhere met 
with him. [Minayeff's conjecture, 
in the introduction to his Gravwiaire 
PidiCy trad. ^^arStan. Guyard, p, viii., 
that the name Mdra is directly re- 
lated to Mairyay an epitliet of Ahri- 
man in the Avesta, and in such a 

not exactly be ranked with the Brdh- 

mana literature. 

Also in the parallel passages in 

the Rik Siitras, and once besides in 
the Ath. S. (viii. 10. 28). 

As an appolUtive epithet of 

way that both ^^remontent d nne 
ijyoquc antericure d la separation da 
Jrayiienset des JJvidous,** is rendered 
extremely doubtful by the mere 
circumstance that nothing of the 
sort occurs anywhere in the Vedr 


non-mention of Krishna'*^ proves nothing to tlie contrary, 
the worship of Krishna as a divinity being of altogether 
uncertain date : besides, it is still a question whether we 
have not really to understand him by the Asura Krishna 
who is repeatedly referred to in these Sutras (see p. 148). 
— Although — to notice other points besides the Pantheon 
— the lunar asterisms iu the Sutras begin with Krittikd, 
that is to say, still retain their old order, we cannot 
adduce this as proof that a comparatively high antiquity 
ought to be assigned to these writings, for the new order 
of the asterisms probably only dates from the fourth or 
fifth century a.d. ; all that results from this is, that the 
particular passages are earlier than this last-mentioned 
date. As an indication, on the contrary, of a date not 
specially ancient, we must certainly regard the mention of 
the planets, as also the occurrence of the word dindra 
(from denariui), which Burnouf (p. 424, n.) has twice met 
with in the older Sutras (see Lassen, T. AK., ii. 348). 

As regards the second division of the Buddhist scrip- 
tures, the Vinaya-Pitaka, or precepts concerning discipline 
and worship, these are almost entirely wanting in the 
Paris collection, doubtless because they are looked upon 
as peculiarly holy, and are therefore kept as secret as pos- 
sible by the priests, being indeed specially intended for 

(Gopalha-Br., i. 28, see note 166, is that of Krisln;,ia ” (/. Su, iii. 161), is 
only an apparent exception^ due unfortunately not l>efore us in the 
probably to Buddhistic influence), original text ; might not the passage 
If, therefore, a direct connection simply mean, “ Your hair is yet 
really exists between Mdra and Anni black?” The fact of Kfislma 
Mainyu, it can only have coinc about, appearing in the Abhidhdnappadl- 
in historic times; and for this there pikil as a name of Vishnu proves, of 
is nowhere auy analogy. course, just as little for the ancient 

3C8 Whether the Southern Binl- texts as the patronymics Eanhi, 
dhists are acquainted with Krishna Ka^htLyana in the schol. on Kachcli., 
is not yet clear. Buddha’s prior v. 2. 4 (Seiiart, pp, 185, 186), which 
birth as Kanha has, according to tiic have necessarily to be referred to the 
text published in PausbolTs edition, epic or divine personality of Krishna, 
p. 194, nothing to do with Krishna ; On the significance of the data 

the Jdtaka as Mahdkanha (No. 461 contained in tiio Mahdblutshya on 
in Westergaard’s CataLy p. 41), can this point, see /• St,, xiii. 349 : for 
hardly have any reference (o liiin the earliest occurrence of Krishna in 
either ; but what of the Jdtaka as an inscription, see Bayley in Journ, 
Kesavafi'ifiK 341 in Westergaard’s A$. Soc. Uciig., 1854, p. 51 ff., with 
CataL, p. 40). The expression in Avhicii cf. /. Sir., ii. 81, and my 
Hardy, East, Mon,, p. 41, “You Kssay Ueher KrislmtCs Geburtsfest, 
are yet a youth, your hair is like p. 318. 


30 $ 

the clergy. — Like the Buddhist mythology, the Buddhist 
hierarchy was a thing of gradual growth. Buddha, as we 
have seen, received all without distinction as disciples, and 
when ere long, in consequence of the great numbers, and 
of the practice of living constantly together, except in the 
winter season, some kind of distribution of rank was re- 

quired, it was upon the principle of age * or merit f that 
this took place. As the Buddhist faith spread more and 
more, it became necessary to distinguish between those 

who devoted themselves entirely to the priestly calling, 

tlie hMkslmf^X monks, and hhiJcshnnis, nuns, on the one 

* Tlio aged were called sthavira^ 
a word not uiifrequeiitly added to 
a proper name in the Brahmanica! 
Sdtraa to diatinguisli a particular 
person from younger namesakes : 
pointa of connection herewith are to 
i>e found in the Bnllimai^as also. 
[Regarding the winter season, see 
Childers, Fdli Diet,, a, v, vojso.] 
t The venerable were styled arh~ 
a 7 it also a title bestowed 

upon teachers in the Brdlimanas. 

X When rdniui speaks of Bhikshu- 
Sdtras, and gi voa as their authors Pd- 
rddarya and Karmanda, (eacliing (iv. 
3. 1 10, III) that tlieir respective ad- 
herents are to be styled Pdrdduri^as 
and Karmandinas, and (iv. 2. 80) 
that the Sdtra of the former is called 
Pdrddariya, the allusion must be to 
Brahmauical mendicants, since these 
names are not mentioned iii Bud- 
dhistic writings. By Wilson, too, in 
the second edition of his Dictionary, 
kwrmandin is given as ^ beggar, reli- 
gious mendicant, member of the 
fourth order.' [According to the St. 
Petersburg Dictionary, from Amara, 
ii. 7. 41, and Hemachandra, 809.] 
But the circumstance must not be 
overlooked that, according to the 
Calcutta scholiasts, neither of these 
two rules of Pd^ini is explained in 
the Mahdbhdshya, and that possibly, 
therefore, they may not be Pdnini's 
at all, but posterior to the time of Pa- 
tatpjali. [The ^Pdrddurino bhiksha- 
vail,' at least, are really mentioned 
in the Bhdsbya to iv. 2 , 66 ; see /. 
iM,, xiii. 340.]— That mendicant 

monks must, as a matter of fact, 
have been particularly numerous in 
Pd^inPs time is apparent from the 
many rules he gives for the forma- 
tion of words in this connection, e.g,, 
bhikshdekwra, iii. 2. 17 ; bhikalidka, 
iii. 2. 155; bhihshu, iii. 2. 168 ; 
bhaikaha from bkikdid in the sense of 
bhtkahd^dijii aamiihai^ iv. 2. 38. Com- 
pare, in particular, also ii. i. 70, where 
the formation of the name for female 
mendicants [iramand, and, in the 
pravrdjitd) is treated of, which 
can only refer to Buddliistic female 
mondicanis. [This lust rule, which 
gives the epithet ‘ virgin ' as a special 
(not us an indispensable) quality 
of the kramand, taken in eonnec- 
tion with iv. i. 127, can hardly 
bo said to throw a very favourable 
light on the * virginity' of the class 
generally; cf. Manu, viii. 363, note 
330 above. The words aai'vdnnina^ 
v. 2. 9, and kaukku^ika, iv. 4. 6, 
likewise exhibit a very distinct Bud- 
dhistic colouring ; on this see /, SL, 
v. 140 ff. On Buddhistic mendi- 
cants at the time of the Bhdshya, 
see the data collected in I, St,, xiii. 
340 ff.] — The entire institution of 
the fourth order rests essentially on 
tlie Sdipkhya doctrine, and its ex- 
tension was certainly due to a large 
extent to Buddhism. The red or red- 
dish-yellow^ garment (kaslidyavciaana) 
and the tonsure [maundya) arc the 
principal badges of the Buddhist 
Uiiksktts; see above, pp. 78, 237. 
On a commentary, extant in India, 
on a Bhikshu-Sutra, see /, St,, i. 470. 


3 o 6 buddhistic SANSKRIT LITERATURE. 

hand, and the Buddhist laity on the other, updsakas and 
ii^dsilcds* Within the priestliood itself, again, nume- 
rous shades of distinction in course of time grew up, 
until at length the existing hierarchy arose, a hierarchy 
wliich differs very essentially from the Brahmanic^ 
one, inasmuch as admission to the priestly order is 
still, as in Buddha’s time, allowed to members of the 
lowest castes on the same conditions as to any one else. 

Among the laity the Indian castes still continue to exist 

wherever they existed in the past ; it is only the Brahman 
caste, or priesthood by birth, that has been abolished, and 

in its place a clergy by choice of vocation substituted. 

The Buddhist cult, too, which now is second to none in 

the world for solemnity, dignity, pomp, and specialities 
was originally exceedingly simple, consisting mainly in 
the adoration of the image of Buddha and of his relics. 

Of the latter point we are first informed by Clemens Alex- 
andrinus. Afterwards the same honour was paid to the 
relics of his most eminent disciples also, and likewise to 
princes who had deserved specially well of Buddhism. 
’J'he story of the ashes of Menander, related by Plutarch 
(see Wilson, Ariana, p. 283), is doubtless to be understood 
in this sense.t Now this relic-worship, the building of 
steeples — traceable, perhaps, to the topes ist'^pas) which 

* Or specially 

dhopdsilcd, as we find it several times 
in the Mi'ichhakafi. 

t For I regard Menander, who on 
his coins is called Minauda, as iden- 
tical with Milinda, king of Sdgala 
(Sdkala), respecting whom see Tur- 
noiir in the Journ, As. Soc. Beng.^ 
V. 530 fF. ; Burnouf, 1 . c., p. 621 ; 
and Calal. MSS. Or. BibL Ilaun.y 
p. 50. (From an article by Spiegel in 
the Kider Allgemeiiie Mimatssekrift^ 
July 1852, p. 561, which has just 
reached me while correcting these 
sheets, I sec that Benfey has already 
identified Menander with Milinda 
[see the Berlin Jahrhucher fur wis- 
sensch, Kritik, 1842, p.87^].) — Schief- 
ner in his notice, Uehcr ludra's 
DonnerJeeUy p. 4 of the separate im- 
pression, 1848, has expressed the 
conjecture that the Buddha Amitd- 

bha» who is uniformly placed in the 
western country Sukhavati, may be 
identical with Amyntas, whose name 
appears ns Amita on his coins ; in 
the name Basili, too (in Schmidt’s 
Dsanglun^ p. 331), he discovers the 
w'ord pacTiXeh. [But Schiefner calls 
my attention to the circumstance, 
that us far back as 1852, in his 
Ergdnzungen und Bericktigungm zu 
SchinuWs Ausgahe des Dsanglun, p. 
56, to p. 256, 1 . 3 of the Tibetan 
text, he withdrew the identification 
of Basili with ^a<7tXe*;s : his connec- 
tion, too, of Amita with Amyntas, 
wdiich had been questioned by Kop- 
pen, ii. 28, note 4, he now regards 
as doubtful.] The legend of the 
Western origin of the ^dkvas I have 
already characterised (p. 285) as per- 
haps invented as a compliment to 



owe their origin to this relic- worship — the system of mona- 
chism, the use of bells and rosaries,* and many other 
details, offer such numerous features of resemblance to 
Christian ritual, that the question whether Christianity 
may not perhaps have been here the borrowing party is 
by no means to be summarily negatived, particularly as 
it is known that Buddhist missionaries penetrated at an 
early period, possibly even in the two centuries preceding 
our era, into Western countries as far as Asia Minor. This 
is still, however, an entirely open question, and requires 

Tlie third division of the Buddhist sacred scriptures, the 
Abhidharma-PitaJca, contains philosophical, and especially 
metaphysical, discussions. It is hardly to be imagined 
that Buddha himself was not clearly cognisant of the 

philosophical basis of his teaching, and that he simply 

adopted this 

from his predecessors, so that the 

courage and energy pertaining to its public promulgation + 
constituted his sole merit. But it seems just as certain 
that he was not concerned to propagate a philosopliical 
system, and that his aim was purely a practical one, to 

* Afterwards adopted by the 
Hrdhmans also. [The very name 
rosary has possibly ariseu from a con- 
fusion of the two Indian words ya;pa- 
mdld and japdmdld; see my paper, 
Ueber Krishna's Geburts/est, pp. 340, 
341 ; Koppen, Die Jkligiondes Bud- 
dha, ii. 319; and also my letter in 
the Indian Antiq,, iv. 250.] 

^ See Ind, SIciz., p, 64 (1857), 
and the data from the Abh 6 Hue’s 
Travels in Tibet in Koppen, i. 561, 
ii. 1 16. According to the interest- 
ing discovery made by Laboulaye 
(see Muller, Chips, iv. 185) and P. 
Liebreeht with regard to Barlaam 
and Josaphat, one of the saints of 
the Catholic Church stands at length 
revealed as Bodhisattva himself — a 
discovery to which Reinaud’s ingeni- 
ous identification of Yfiasaf, Yfidasf, 
with Bddsatf {Mem, surVlnde, p. 91) 
might alone liave led ; ace Z, D. M. 
G,, xxiv. 48o.^But neitiier is the 
contrary supposition, namely, that 
Christian influences may have af- 

fected the growth of Buddhist ritual 
and worship, as they did tliat of the 
Buddhist legends, by any means to 
be dismissed out of band. Indeed, 
quite apart from the oft-ventilated 
question as to the significance of 
such influences in the further de- 
velopment of Blfishpa-worship, there 
are legends connected with the 6iva 
cult also, as to which it is not at all 
a far-fetched hypothesis that they 
have reference to scattered Christian 
missionaries; see A St., i. 421, ii. 
398; Z. D. M. 0 ., xxvii. 166 (v. 
263). — That Western influence has 
played a part in Tibet, finds support 

in a letter of Sehiefner’s, according to 
which, in a work of Dsaja Pandita, 
Galen is mentioned as the physician 
of the Persians, and is said to have 
been consulted by the first Tibetan 
king, along with a celebrated Indian 
and a cclci>rated Chinese physician, 
+ In this courage the circumstance 
that he belonged by birth to the 
military caste finds expression. 

3 o 8 buddhistic SANSKRIT LITERATURE. 

awaken virtuous actions and dispositions. This is in 
accord with the circumstance, that, whereas the Buddhists 
allege of the Siltra-Pitaka and the Vinaya-Pitaka that they 
were delivered by Buddlui himself, in the case of the 
Abhidharma-Pitaka, on the contrary, they stai’t with the 
admission that it is the production of his disciples. Ac- 
cording to Burnouf, the doctrines of the Abhidharma are 
in reality only a further development or continuation of 
the views here and there propounded in the Sdtras ; in- 
deed, the writings in question often merely add • single 
words to the thoughts expressed in the Sutras : “ but in 
any case there exists an interval of several centuries be- 
tween the two, and that difference which distinguishes a 
doctrine still in its earliest beginnings from a pliilosophy 
which has arrived at its furthest development.” * In the 
Brahma -Sdtra of Badarayana doctrines are repeatedly 
combated which, on ^amkara’s testimony, belong to two 
distinct schools of Buddhist philosophy, and consequently 
both of these, and perhaps also the other two schools 
which are ranked with them, belong to a period preceding 
the composition of this Brahma-Sutra. — The doctrines 
themselves cannot be recognised with perfect distinctness, 
and their affinity, although undeniable, to the doctrines of 
the Samkhya system is still enveloped in some obscurity.®®^ 
On this point, however, so much is clear, that, although 
Buddha himself may actually have been in full harmony 
with the doctrines of Kapila, as they then existed,f yet his 
adherents developed these in their own fashion ; in the 

♦ Whether now, after these words of individual existence was certainly 
of Burnouf’s, loc, city p. 522, Las- the ?ro:il to which Buddha aspired; 
ten's view {/, AK,y ii. 458) is tea- liurdiy, however, the resolving of this 
ftble — to the efFoet that “although, existence into nothing, but only its 
in the collection bearing the name return to tiie same state of awrfyd, or 
of Abhidharma, there are writings of unconsciousness whicli belonged to 
various dates, yet they must all be primeval matter before it attained 
assigned to the period preceding the to development at all," LU. 0 . 
third council" (this third council in BL, 1857, p. 770 (/. ii. 132). 
B.c. 275 being here expressly dis- Childers thinks differently, Pali 
tineruished from the fourtli under Diet. s. v. nirvana, 

Kanishka) — appears to me in the + Were he really to be identified 
vury highest degree doubtful, with the Sdkdyanya of theMuitnlyani 

Cf. for this I, Sty iii. 132; Upanishad (seep. 97), we should have 
Max Duiicker, Geschichte der Arie 7 \ in this work tolerably direct evidence 
p. 234 ff. (1867) ; Koppen, i. 214 ft' — above effect. 

'^The extinction, the ‘ blowing out’ 


3 ^ 

name way as the followers of Kapila also pursued their 
own path, and so eventually that system arose which is 
now extant under the name Samkhya, and which differs 
essentially from the Buddhist philosophy.* To the four 
schools into which, as we have just seen, this philosophy 
was split up at a comparatively early period, four others 
were afterwards added — or perhaps these superseded the 
former — but neither have the doctrines of these later 
schools been as yet set forth with anything like sufficient 
certainty.®®^ The question, too, whether Buddhistic con- 
ceptions may not perhaps have exercised a direct influence 
on the development of Gnostic doctrines,t particularly 
those of Basilides, Valentinian, and Bardesanes, as well as 
of Manes, must for the present be regarded as w'holly un- 
determined*;®®® it is most intimately bound up with the 
question as to the amount of influence to be ascribed to 
Indian philosophy generally in the shaping of these doc- 
trines. The main channel of communication in the case 
of the latter was through Alexandria; the Buddhist mis- 
sionaries, on the contrary, probably mostly came from the 
Panjab through Persia. 

Besides the three Pitakas, the Sanskrit manuscripts 
that have been procured -from Nepdl contain other works 
also, consisting, in part, of a large number of commen- 
taries on and elucidations of the Pitakas, in part, of a 

* Whether vv. 9-11 of the Iso- special work on Tibetan and Chinese 
panishad are to be taken, with the Buddhism. See on this point lAt, 
commentator, as specially referring ( 7 . BL ^ 1875, p. 550. 
to the Buddhists, as I assume in t See F. Nbve, VAntixiuiii ChH- 
I, SLf i. 298, 299, appears to me tienne en Orient, p, 90, Ijouvain, 
doubtful now: the. polemic may 18^2. 

simply be directed against the Sdip- Cf. now Lassen,/. AK., iii. 

khya tenets in general. 387-416; my !nd, Skiz,, p. 64; 

Our information regarding Kenan, dca iaw^. 2d cd,, 

them is derived exclusively from 1858, pp. 274, 275. That their in- 
Hodgson’s Essays (now collected, gee fluence upon the growth of the doc- 
note 345). Their names, Svdbhd- trines of Manes in particular was a 
vika, AUvarika, Edrmika, Ydtnika, most important one is shown, for 
are so far unsupported by any other example, by this circumstance alone, 
literary evidence. Only for the that the formula of abjuration for 
names Sautrdntika, Vaibh&hika, those who reimunced these doctrines 
Mddhyamika, Yog^hdra, is such expressly specifies BoSSa and the 
testimony found. Tdrandtha, for Zki/^iuvos (seemingly a separation of 
example, is acquainted with these ‘ Buddha Sdkyamuni ’ into two) — 
latter only, and they are also the Lassen, iii. 415. — Cf. also Beal, /• 
only ones known to Wassiljew in his E, A, S,, ii. 424 (1866). 


most peculiar class of writings, the so-called Tantras, which 
are looked upon as especially sacred, and which stand pre- 
cisely upon a level with the Brahmanical works of the 
same name. Their contents are made up of invocations of 
various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, as also of then* ^aktis, 
or female energies, with a motley admixture of ^ivaitic 
deities; to which are added longer or shorter prayers 
addressed to these beings, and directions how to draw the 
mystic diagrams and magic circles that secure their favour 
and protection. *** 

Cf. Emil Schlagintweit’s Bud* poetry ; as to which see Elatt in 
dhim, in Tibet (1863, with a folio the preface to his edition of the 
atlas of twenty plates). — Recently sentences of Chdpakya, taken there- 
therc have also come from Nepdl from (1873). 

Sanskfit MSS. containing works of 




ff.). Burnell 

^ymnen dea l^igwda 


Samhitd, as compared with those of the Rik-Samhitd. 

P. 25, note and p. 67, note ®®. On the ^ikshds see 
Kielhorn’s paper in the Ivid. Ardiq., v. 141 ff., 103 fif, and 

P. 32, note i 

has now been cast. 

ibid., p. 253. 
be Vdshkalas 
L the first nla 


kdriM qimted in my Catal. of the Berlin Sansk. 

Sdkaldndm samdni va ity richd ’ntyd 

. P- 314, 

’’hutirhhavet | Bdalilccddndm, tu tcudihamyor ity richd 
hutir lihavet! it results that the citation in the forty-eight 
Atharva-pari^ishta (see I. St,, iv. 431) of the iamyuvdh 

concluding verse of the Rik 
Vdshkala-recension of the la 

stood in 


Next, it becomes 

the ^dnkhdyana texts, since in the §aukh. Grih., 
the same verse is cited as the concluding one of th' 
hitd, and this expressly as the view of Kaushital 
addition to this we have the fact that the pratika 
whole section to which this verse 


khUa — samjndna 



of the Rik-Samhitd, is found cited in the Sankhdy.-^rauta- 
Sdtra, 3. 6. 4, but is wanting in the parallel passage, As^val., 
2, II. ^ And, lastly, we shall probably also have to allot to 
the Vashkalas the eleven hymns — ten Asvind/ni and one 
AiTiArd/oa/rv/fjMTn sdktwm, — which, as Rud. Meyer has re- 
cently pointed out (Rigvidhana, Praef., p. xxiv.), are cited 



in the Brihaddevata, 3. 24, between Rik-Samh., i. 73 and 
74. For, according to' Meyer, their pratikas prove to be 
identical with those given by the scholiast on ^dnkh. ^r., 
9. 20. 14, for the 'trUatam swpanmm' there mentioned in 
the text, which again is specified under this name in the 
^ankh. Br. itself (18. 4) as part of the A^vina-^astra. 
Probably, too, the other portions of text, which, as stated 
by Meyer ( 1 . c., p. xxv. If.), appear in the Brihaddevata 
as well as in the Rigvidhana, as belonging to the Rik- 
Samhita, whereas they are found neither in the vulgate 
the ^akala-Samhita — itself, nor in its kMla portions, will 
have to be assigned to the Vasbkalas. In point of fact, 
the samjndna khila also, to which (see above) the con- 
cluding verse of tlie Vaslikala-Samhita belongs, is men- 
tioned in both texts (Meyer, p. xxii.). An exact comparison 
of the Rik-verses cited in the Sankhayana texts will pro- 
bably throw full light upon this point. — In Biihler’s letter 
from Kashmir (published in I. SL, xiv. 402 if.) the in- 
teresting information was given that he had there dis- 
covered an excellent 6M^ya-MS., soine five to six hundred 
years old, of the Rik-Samhila in the ^akala recension. 
This MS. is accentuated, whereas the Kashmir Vedic 
MSS. are not wont to be so, but the accent is denoted in a 
totally different manner from that customary in India, the 
uddtta alone being marked by a perpendicular line, pre- 
cisely as, according to Haug, is usual in one of the two 
schools of the Maitrayani Samhita, and as we ourselves 
do; cf, my remarks in the Jcnaer Lit. Zeit., 1875, p. 315* 
On this MS. see now the detailed report of Biihler’s journey 
in the Journal Bonib. Br. B. A. S., 1 877, extra Ko., pp. 35, 36. 

Pp- 35 > 3 ^> **ote §. See also Myriantheus, ike Asvins 
(Munich, 1876), and James Darmesteter, Ormaxd et Ahri- 
man (Paris, 1877). 

P. 41, note See Alfred Hillebrandt, Varuna und 
Mitra, ein Beitrag zur Exegese des Veda (Breslau, 1 877). 

P- 43 , note Max Muller’s issue of the text alone of 
the Rik has now appeared in a second edition (London, 
1877). Samhitd-pdtka and pada-'pdtha are here printed 
on opposite pages. Respecting the latter it has to be 
remarked that, as in Muller’s previous editions, so again 
in this one the so-called galitas arc in no way marked, 
the text which a particular passage shows the first time 


it occurs being uniformly simply repeated, without any 
reference to what is done in the MSS. themselves in these 
cases. This is all the more surprising as, after I had 
pointed out this defect, in my review of the last volume of 
his large edition in the Lit. Cent, lilatt, 17th April 1875, 
Muller himself, in an article which appeared in the same 
periodical a year and a half later (i6th December 1876) 
fully recognised the critical importance of the galitas . — 
Aufrecht’s edition has also been reprinted (Bonn, 1877): 
the preface (comp, desideratum at note 28) contains a 
variety of critical remarks. — Complete translations of the 
Rik-Samhit 4 , by Alfred Ludwig (Prag, 1 876) and Hermann 
Grassmann (Leipzig, 1876-77) have appeared. — Very meri- 
torious, also, is the edition of the Rik-Samhita which is 
appearing in monthly numbers at Bombay, under the title 
‘ Vedarthayatna,’ with English and Mahrathi translation, 
as well as with Mahrathi commentary : the latest No. 
brings it, down to i. 100. The name of the excellent 
editor, Shankar Pa^^it, is an open secret. — Lastly, there 
remains to be mentioned M. Hang’s Vedische Bathselfragen 
und Rdthselsprilche (Rik, i. 164, 1876). 

P. 48, note Mjendra Ldla Mitra’s edition, in the 
Bibl. Indica, of the Aitareya-Aranyaka wdth Sayana’s com- 
mentary, has now been completed. A MS. acquired by 
Biihler in Kashmir shows a number of variations ; see his 

Report of Journey, 1 . c., p. 34. 

P. 50, 6 (cf. p. 285). Panchdlachanda appears in a Pali 
Sutta among the mahdsendpatis of the Yakkhas ; for the 
conclusions to be drawn from this see Jenaer Lit. Zeit., 
7th April 1877, p. 221. 

P. 56, 8. The ^ankh. Grih. (4, 10. 3) inserts between 

Vi^vdmitra and Vamadeva, the tw'o representatives of the 

third and fourth mandalas, the name of Jamadagni, to 

whom in the Anukramanl to the ^akala-Samhita only the 

last three verses of the third mandala (iii. 62, 16-18) are 

in this place ascribed, — but in addition to these, also 

five entire hymns and four separate verses in the last three 

mandalas. Have we here also to do wdth a divergence of 
• • ^ 

the Vashkala school? (In Sankh. Grih., 4. 5. 8, however, 
there is no trace of this variation from the vulgate ; rather, 
the verse iii. 62. 1 8 appears there as the concluding verso 
of the third mandala) 



P. 58, note The Karikh. Grihya has been published, 
with translation and notes, by Herm. Oldenberg; see 
I. St., XV. I- 1 66. There exists also another recension of it, 
which is designated as Kaushitaka-Grihya, but which, 
according to Oldenberg, is rather to be understood as 
^ambavya-Gnhya. Its text is ‘ nowise identical ’ with 
the iSafikh. Grih., ' but it has borrowed from the latter by 
far the greatest part both of its matter and form.’ The 
last two books of the ^ankh. Grih. are not used in it, and 
a great deal is lacking besides. 

P. 6r, note On the Jyotisha a very meritorious work 
has just appeared by G. Thibaut. 

P. 62, 6, 26 ff. On the Brihaddevata and Rigvidhdna see 
R. Meyer’s edition of the latter work (Berlin, 1877). 

P. 65, a8. The forty-eighth Atharva-pari^ishta, see I. 
St.yiv. 432, gives indeed the same beginning, but a different 
concluding verse to the Sama-Samhita, namely, the last 
verse but one of the first part of the vulgate ; accordingly, 
it did not reckon the second part as belonging to the Sam- 
hitd at all, while for the first part also it presents the 
discrepancy stated. 

P. 65, note The Arapya-Samhita, with Sayana’s 
commentary, has been edited by Satyavrata Sama^ramin, 
and that in a double form, namely, separately (Calcutta, 
1873), in the second part of his large edition of 

the Sdma-Samhitd, p. 244 ff. 

P. 66, note This edition of the Sama-Samhitd, in 
the BiU. Indica, has now reached, in its fifth volume, as 
far as 2. 8. 2. 5. 

Pp. 73, 74. The Talavakara- or Jaiminiya-Brahmana, 
to which tlie Kenopan. belongs, has been recovered by 
Burnell (letter of 19th April). Also a Samaveda-Pra- 

Pp. 74, 75, notes The Arsheya-Brahmana and 

Samhitopanishad-Brahmana have also been edited by Bur- 
nell (Mangalore, 1876, 1877); the former with a lengthy 
introduction containing an inquiry into the Gauas, the 
secondary origin of the Samhita from these, the chanting 
of the sdmaTis, &c. On this compare A. Barth’s detailed 
notice in the Revue Critiqti.e, 21st July 1877, pp. 17-27. 
Tlie Arsheya-Brahmana has, further, just been issued a 
second time by Burnell, namely, in the text of the Jai- 



miulya school, which he had meanwhile recovered (Man- 
galore, 1878). 

Pp. 99-101. According to the catalogue (1876) of M. 
Hang’s collection of MSS., there are now in the Eoyal 
Library at Munich, with which this collection w'as incor- 
porated in the spring of 1877, not only two MSS. of the 
Maitrayani Samhita, but also several more or less com- 
p^lete, but, unfortunately, in great part modern, copies of 
Apastauiba, Manava, Bharadvaja, Baudhayana, Vaikha- 
nasa, Hiranyake^in. — The description (in notes 108, 109) 
of the Dharma-Siitras as part of the Srauta-Siitras is not 
quite correct ; rather both are portions, possessing an equal 
title, of a collective Sutra-whole, to which in each case 
there also belonged a Grihya- and a ^ulva-Siitra, and which 
we might perhaps designate by the name of Kalpa-Siitra. 
— [The North-Western origin of the Katha school (cf. 
Kddaia, J. St., xiii. 439) is also, in a certain measure, 
attested by the fact that, according to Biihler’s letter from 
Kashmir (dated September 1875, published in I. St., xiv. 
402 if.) on the results of his search for MSS. in that pro- 
vince, this school is still in the present day the prevailing 
one in Kashmir. The Biahmans there call themselves, it 
is true, chaturvedi, but tluiy foUow the rules of the Ka- 
thaka-Grihya-Shtra of Laugakshi. Besides portions of all 
the Vedas, the Bhattas learn by heart the Paddhati of 
Hevapala, the commentary and yrayoija to the Kathaka- 
Grihya. ‘ Of these Grihyas I have acquired several MSS., 
among them an old one on hhdrja. To the Kathaka-Siitra 
are attached a Pravaradhyaya, an Arsha, the Charayaniya 
Siksha, and several other Parikishtas .’ — Additional note in 
second German edition!\ According to Btihler, Z. D. M. G., 
xxii. 327, the Dharma-Sutra of the Kathaka school is iden- 
tical -with the Vishnu-Smriti. On this, and on the Ka- 
thaka school in Kashmir generally, see now' Btihler, Keport 

of Journey, 1 . c., pp. 20, 36, 37. 

P. 103, note The Taitt. Pnitisakhya has also been 

edited in the Bill. Indica by Kajeudra Lala Mitra (1872). 

Pp. 1 1 7, 118. The forty-eighth Atharva-Pari^ishta spe- 
cifies a recension of the Vaj. Samh., which begins with 
I. I, but which ends with 23. 32 ! See 1 . St, iv. 432. 

P. 1 14. Bor the formula Amle amhike 'mhdlike, 
w'hich differs in all three Yajus texts, Paitini (vi. 7. 118) 



has a fourth reading ; on this and the other points of con* 
nection between Panini and the vocabulary of the Yajus 
texts, see I. St., iv. 432. 

P. 138, 23. According to Mahavabsa, p. 9. m, 15, the 
name of Buddha’s wife was Bhadda- or Subhadda-Kach- 
chana ! 

P. 139. note Satap., 3. i, 1-2. 2, is translated in 
Bruno Lindner’s dissertation, Ueher die Bikshd (Leipzig, 
1 878) ; other portions inDelbnicTc’s Wortfolge ( 1 878). 

P. 142, note The Paraskara has been edited by 
Stenzler (1876). 

P. 150, note In the forty-eighth Atharva-Pari- 
^ishta, the commencement of the Atliarva-Samhita is given 
just as in the published recension, but it ends there with 
Book xvi. ; see I. St, iv. 432. 

P. 151, note With the doshapati compare the pdp- 
man dsura in the Nrisinhop. ; see I. St, ix. 149, 150. 

P. 153 Cf. Paul Pegnaud, servir d 

I’Histoire de la Philosopliie de VInde, 1 876, and my review 
of this work in tlie Jenaer Lit. Zeit. of 9th February 1878. 

P. 182, note The dates of the Nepalese MSS. appa- 
rently reach back as far as a.d. 883 ! See Dan. Wright, 
Histoi'y of Nepal, 1877, Jenaer Lit. Zeit, 1877, p. 412. 

Pp. 187, 188, note On Olshausen’s explanation of 
the word Pahlav — the basis of the Indian PaJdava — from 
Partlmva, ‘ Parthians,’ see now also Th. Noldeke in Z. D. 
M. G., xxxi. 557 ff. 

P. 189, note According to Kern, Over de ovd- 
J avaansclie Vertaliny va 7 iHMaJLdhhdrata{Am^iex(!iQm, 1 877), 
p. 7 ff., the Kavi translation of the Adi-parvan, from whicli 
he there communicates the text of the Paushyacharita, 
dates from the beginning of the eleventh century. 

P. 189, note For tlie criticism of the Maha-Bharata, 
Holtziiiann’s researches (Indische Sagen, Preface, Stuttgart, 
1854) are also of great importance. 

P. 191, note The Index to Hall’s edition of Wilson’s 
translation of the Vishnu-PuVana (vol. v. part ii.) appeared 
in 1877. The edition of the Agni-Purana in the Bibl. Ind. 
has now reached adhy. 294. 

^95> IS- The identity of the author of the Eaghu- 
yahsa and Kuinara-sambhava with the dramatist Kalidasa 
is contended for by Shankar Pancjit in the Transactioiu 



of the London Congress of Orientalists (London, 1876), p. 
227 ff. 

P. 196, note Bharavi and Kdlidasa aie mentioned 
together in an inscription of Pulake^i II., ‘in the Saka 
year 507 (a.d. 585-6) at that date, therefore, they must 
have been already famous. See Bhau Daji in Joum. 
Bomb. Br. JR. A. 8 ., ix. 3 1 5, and J. F. Fleet in Ind. Antig., 
V. 68. — On the Kashmir poets Chandraka and Mentha, of 
about the fifth (?) century, liatnakara of the ninth, Kshe- 
mendra and Bilhana of the eleventh, Somadeva, Maukha, 
Kalhana, &c., of the twelfth century, see Biihler, Keport 
of Journey, 1 . c., p. 42 ff. 

P. 199, note f. For the text of these Suttas see now 
Grimblot, Sept suttas Fdlis (Paris, 1 876), p. 89 ; ‘ -nachcham 
gitam vdditam pekkham adcklidrui'ni . . iti vd iti evardpd 
msdlcadassand ‘ (exhibitions, p. 65, spectacles, pp. 179, 
2 1 5). From this it appears that the word here properly 
in question is not so much the general term visdka as 
rather, specially, pekkha {prekshya), ‘ exhibition,’ ‘ spec* 
tacle,’ translated by ‘ theatricals,’ pp. 65, 179, ‘ repidsenta- 
tions dramatiques,’ p. 215 ; comp, prekshanaka as the name 
of a species of drama in Bharata (Hall, Da^anipa, p. 6), 
and driiya in the Sahitya-darpana as the name of dramatic 
poetry in general. 

Pp. 200, 12, 205, 20. According to Hall, Vasavad., In- 
trod., p. 27, Bhavabhilti would have to be placed earlier 
than Subandhu, and if so, of coui-se, d fortiori, earlier than 
P>ana : the latter, however, does not allude to him in the 
classic passage in the introduction to the Harsha-charita, 
where he enumerates his predecessors (Hall, ibid., pp. 13, 
14). See also Ind. Streifen, i 355. 

P, 201, note 1 ). According to Lassen, 1 . AK., iii 855, 
1163, Bhojadied in 1053. An inscription of his in the 
Ind. Antig., 1877, p. 54, is dated in the year 1022. 

P. 203, note. According to Biihler, Ind. Antig., v. 112 
(April, 1876), a grant of King Jayabhata is ‘ older than 
the year 445 a.d., and dated in tlie Vikrama era.’ 

P. 204, note In Z. D. M, G., xxx. 302, Jacobi cites 
from the Urva^f a (chronometrical) datum betokening 
Greek influence. 

P. 207, note Of new publications, &c., of Indian 
dramas have to be mentioned : Bhandarkar’s edition of the 



Miilatf-madhava (Bombay, 1 876), Cappeller’s edition of the 
Itatnavali (1877, in the second edition of Bdhtlingk’s 
SansJcrit-Chrestomaihie), the Bengali recension of the ^a- 
kuntaia, edited by Pischel (see Cappeller in the J enaer 
Lit. Zeit., 1 877, p. 1 2 1), the two latter dramas translated 
by Ludw. Fritze ; lastly, Regnaud’s translation of the 
Mrichhakatika (Paris, 1876). — On the question as to the 
vai-ious recensions of Kalidasa’s ^akuntala — discussed in 
I. St., xiv. 1 61 ff. — see also Biihler’s Report of Journey, 
1. c., p. Ixxxv. £f*., where the first act of the Kashmir recen- 
sion of this drama is printed. 

P. 210, note To this place also belongs ^rivara’s 
Subhashitavali of the lifteenth century, containing quota- 
tions from more tlian 350 poets; see Biihler, Report of 
Journey, 1. c., p. 61 fF. ; further, the Subhash ita-ratnakara 
by Krishna Shastri Bliatavadekar (Bombay, 1872). — Here, 
too, have to be mentioned the four papers Zwr Kritik U7id 
Eridwnvnr] versckiedeneT itulisch^r Werke, published by 0 . 
Bbhtlingk in vols. vii. and viii. of the Melanges Asiatiques 

J ^ \ ^ / 

Comp. Benfey’s Introduction to Bick 

of the St. Petersburg Academy (1875-76). 

P. 212, note 2-2. 

(ill’s edition and translation of the ‘ Kalilag und Danmag* 
(Leipzig, 1876). It now appears doubtM whether the 
ancient Pablavi version really rested upon one individual 
work as its basis, or whether it is not rather to be re- 
garded as an epitome of several independent texts ; see my 
notice of the above work in Lit. 0. Bl., 1876, No. 31, 
Biililer, Report of Journey, p. 47 ; Prym in the J enaer Lit. 

1878, Art. 118. 

P. 213, note Read ‘ recast by Kshemendra.’ It is 
only to Kshemendra that the statements from Blihler’s 
letter, given in the next sentence, refer. Biihler now 
places liim in tlie second and third quarter of the eleventh 
century. Report of Journey, 1. c., p. 45 IT. 

P. 213. On the Raja-taramgini see now Biihler, Report 
of Journey, pp. 52-60, Ixvi.-lxxxii. (where an amended 
translation of i. 1-107 is given) ; and on the Nila-mata, of 
about the sixth or sevenih century, ibid., p. 38 ff., Iv. ff. 

P. 214, note The Harsha-charita appeared at Cal- 
cutta in 1876, edited by Jivananda. — On the Sihluisana- 
dv:ltrin^ika see now my paper in I. St., xv. 185 ff. 

P. 215, note In the interpretation of Indian inscrip- 


3 *» 

tions, Blihler and Fleet also, iu particular, have of late done 
very active service (especially in Ind. Antiq., vols. v., vi.). 

P. 221, note Goldstiicker’s ‘ facsimile’ (comp, note 
p. poo) edition of the Manavakalp. is not ‘ plioto-litho- 
graphed/ but lithographed from a tracing. 

P. 226, note Kielliorn has come forward with great 
vigour iu defence of the Mahabhashya, first, in a lengthy 
article in the Ind. Antiq., y. 241 (August 1876), next in 
his Essay, Kdtydyana and Patamjali (Bombay, December 
1876), which deals specially with the analysis of the work 
into its component parts ; and, lastly, in his edition of the 
work itself, which exhibits the text critically sifted, in 
direct reference thereto (the first number, Bombay, 1878, 
gives the TMvdhnikam). Cf., further, two articles by B'tan-* 
darkar. On the Relation of Kdtydyana to Pdnini and of 
Patamjali to Kdtydyana in Ind. Antiq., v. 345 ff. (December 
1 876), and on Ooldstiicher' s Theory about Pdnini* s Technical 
Terms (reprint of an earlier review of G.’s Pdnini), ibid., 
vi. 107 ff. To this place also belongs an article on the 
Mahdbhdshya, which ^as sent off by me to Bombay on 9th 
October 1876, but which only appeared in the Ind. Antiq., 
vi. 301 ff.,in October 1877. 

P. 226, note On the antiquity of the Ka^ika see 
now Btihler’s Eeport of Journey, p. 72. The issue of the 
work iu the Pandit is perhaps by this time completed. It 
is to be hoped that it will appear in a separate edition. — 
BuhleFs information regarding Vyadi, the Mahabhashya, 
Katantra, &c., is given in detail in his Report of Jouimey. 
— On Burnell’s essay. On the Aindra School of Sanskrit 
Grammarians (1875), which contains rich materials, see 
my critique in the Jenaer Lit. Zeit., March 1 876, p. 202 fif. 
— Of Hemachandra’s Prdkrit-Grammar Pischel has given 
us a new edition (Halle, 1877, text and good index of 

P. 229, note t. This note, according to Barth, Revue 
Critique, 3d Jime 1876, is to be cancelled, as paraitre can 
only have the sense of ‘ seem ’ {scheinen). 

P. 231, note ***. On Kshemendra’s Loka-prakaia see 
Biihler, Report of Journey, p. 75. 

P. 231, 29. See note above to p. 182. 

P. 231, note The translation of the Sahitya-darpana 
in the BiU. Indica is now finished. — For the rich informa- 




tion supplied by Blihler regarding the Alarnkara literature 
in Kashnrn*, see his Report of Journey, p. 64 ff. Accord- 
ins to this, the Alamkara-^astra of Bhatta Udbhata dates 

o ^ • 

from the time of Jayapi'da (779-813), whose sdbhdpati the 

author was. 
the same period. 

Vamana, too, in Biihler’s opinion, belongs to 

A.nandavai’dhana and Ratnakara belong 

to the ninth century, Mukula to the tenth, Abhinavagupta 
to the beginning, Rudrata to the end, of the eleventh, while 
Ruyyaka flourished at the commencement, and Jayaratha 
at the close, of the twelfth century ; Alammata is to be 
placed still later. 

P. 235, note 

Of the Sarva-dar^ana-samgraha there 
is now a translation, by Cowell and Gough, in the Pandit, 

1875 ft‘. 

P. 237, note The Samkhya-tattva-pradipa has been 
translated by Govindadeva^astrin in the Pandit, Nos. 98 ft’. 

237, note Abhinavagupta was still living in 

—The ^aiva- 



A.D. 1015 ; Blihler, Rei)Ort of Journey, p. 80.— 

^astra in Kashmir, ibid., pp. 77-82, is divided into two 
groups, of which the one connects itself with the Spanda- 
lastra of Vasugupta (854), the other witli the Praty- 
abhijna-^astra of Somananda (ab. 900) and Utpala (ab. 930). 
It is of the latter — which appears, to rest upon ^amkara 
that Abhinavagupta is the leading representative. 

P. 241, note The last number of this edition of ^aba- 
rasvamin brings it down to 10. 2. 73 ; the edition of the 
Jaimim'ya-nyaya-mala-vistara has just been completed by 

The Jaimini-siitra is being published in the 
Bombay monthly periodical, ‘ Sliaddar^ana-chintanika,' 
begun in January 1877 — text and commentary with a 
double translation, in I nglish and Mahratln'. 

r , • 

P. 243, note Vachas})atiini 4 ra’s Bhamali, a gloss on 
Sarnkara's commentary on the Vedanta-siitra, is in course 
of publication in the Bibl. Ind. edited by Balaiastrin, — 
commenced in 1876. — In the for 1876, p. 113, in 

the Preface to his edition of Srinivasaddsa’s Yati'ndrainata- 
dipika, Ramami^ra^astrin cites a passage from Ramanuja’s 
Brahmasutra-bliashya, in which the latter mentions the 
Mft^ara^^^-Bodhayana as his predecessor therein, and as 
separated from him by several gcoHuations Kd'pwt'vdclidryas. 
As such pu.rvdcJidryas Ramami.sra gives the names of 
Dramida, Guhadeva, and Brahnninandi, at the same time 



designating them by the epithets maharshi and suprdchi- 
natarm. By ^rinivasaddsa himself (p. 1 1 5) tlie teachers 
are mentioned in the following order: Vyasa, Bodhayana, 
Guhadeva, Bharuchi, Brahmanandi, Dravidacharya, Sri- 
Paranku^anatha, Yamunainuni, Yati^vara. — Here is also 
to be mentioned the edition in the Pandit, by Vechana- 
ramaiastrin, of two commentaries on the Vedanta-sutra, 
viz., the ^aiva-bhashya of Sn'kantlia Sivacharya (see Z. D. 
M. G., xxvii. 166), and the Vedanta-kaiistubha-prabiia of 
Ke^ava Ka^nurabhatta. — Further, in the second edition of 
liis Sanahrit-Ckrestomathie (1877) Bohtlingk has given a 
new translation of the Vedanta-sara ; and the Vidvan- 
manoranjini of Kamatirtha, a commentary thereoii, has 
been published, text with translation, in the Pandit by 
Gongh and Govindadeva^astrin. In the same journal has 
also appeared the Advaita-makaranda of Lakshmldhara. 

P. 245, note ***. A translation, by Ke^ava^astrin, of the 
Hyaya-dar^ana and of Vatsyayana’s commentary thereon, 
has begun to appear in the Pandit (new series, vol. ii.). 
The fourth book of Gangela’s Nyaya-chintamani, with the 
commentary of Ruchidatta, has also been edited, ibid. 

(Nos. 66-93) Bala^astrin. 

P. 247, note Of importance are the names, com- 
municated to me from Albi'rdni by Ed. Sachau, of the 
mendzil in Soghd and Khvarizm, the list of which begins 
with thurayyd, i.e., with Jerittikd, and that under the name 
parvi; by this is evidently meant parviz, i.e., the name 
which stands third in the Bundehesh, whence it neces- 
sarily follows that the list of names in the latter is the 
modern one, commencing with divini ; see Jenaer Lit. Zeit., 
1877 (7th April), p. 221. Some of the names here cited 
by Albi'runf are distinctly Indian, as frshthdth, i.e., pro- 
shthapdda, the ancient form of name, consequently, (not 
hliadrapadd). Here, too, presumably, as in the case of 
China, the Buddhists were the channel of communication. 

Pp. 250, 251, note The proposition laid down by 
H. Jacobi in Z. D. M. G., xxx. 306, that no Indian 
writings, which enumerate the planets in the order — Sun, 
Moon, Mars, «&c. — can have been composed earlier than 
the third century a.d., has application to Yajnavalkya, as 
well as to the Atharva-pari^ishUis, which in point of fact 
already observe this order ; see I. St., x. 317. 



P. 253, note *. The absence of mention of tlie Eomakaa 
in the Kamayana may perhaps also rest upon geograpliical 
grounds, namely, on the probable origin of the poem in 
the east of India, in the land of the Ko^alas, whereas the 
‘war-part’ of the Mahd-Bharata was in all likelihood 
composed in Central, if not in Western India. 

P. 256, note Cf. Thibaut’s paper ‘ On the ^ulva- 
sutras’ in the Joum. As. Soc. Bengal^ 1875 (minutely dis- 
cussed by Mor. Cantor in the hist. lit. div. of the Zeitsch. 
fur Math, und Physik, vol. xxii.), and his edition of the 
^ulva-sdtra of Baudhayana with the commentary of Dva- 
rakanathayajvan (text with translation) in the PainMt, 

May, 1875-77. 

P. 256, note *. The explanation of the Indian figures 
from the initial letters of the numerals has recently been 
rudely shaken, see Biihler in Ind. Ant, vi. 48, — through 
the deciphering, namely, of the ancient ‘ Nagan numerals ’ 
by Pandit Bhagvanlal Indraji, Und., p. 42 ff. These, it 
appears, turn out to be other letters, yet the derivation of 
the later figures from them can hardly be called in ques- 
tion. What principle underlies these ancient numerals is, 
for the rest, still obscure : the zero has not yet a place 
among them; there are letter-symbols for 4-10 (1-3 
being merely represented by strokes) for the tens up to 
90, and for the hundreds up to icxK). Comp. pp. 222, 
note 233 ^ and 257, note ***. 

P. 260, note *. The remainder of the Yatra has now 
been edited by Kern in I. St., xiv. and xv. 

P. 266 ff. In complete opposition to the former dreams 
about the high antiquity of Indian medicine, Haas has 
recently, in Z. D. M. G., xxx. 617 ff. and xxxi. 647 ff, 
characterised even the most ancient of the Indian medical 
texts as quite modern productions, to be traced to Arabian 
sources. In the accounts given by the Arabs themselves 
of the high repute in which Indian medicine stood with 
them, and of the translation of works of the kind, which 
are specified by name, from Sanskrit into Arabic, he recog- 
nises hardly any value. As regards the latter point, how- 
ever, there exists absolutely no ground for throwing doubt 
upon statements of so definite a character made by the 
old Arab chroniclers; while, with respect to the former 
point, the language of Sulruta, Charaka, &c., is distinctly 



opposed to the assignment to them of so late a date. At 
the same time, every real proof of the presence of Greek 
(or even Arabian) conceptions in the works in question, 
wdl have to be thankfully received. But the early 
existence of medical knowledge in India would in no way 
be prejudiced thereby, as its beginnings are well attested 
by evidence from the Vedic period, especially from the 

P. 270, note 310 Charaka, as Biihler informs me, has 
now also been printed at Bombay, edited by Dr. Anna 
Mureshvar Kunte, Grant Medical College. 

P. 271, note The Kavi translation of the Kaman- 
daki-niti probably belongs, at the earliest, to about the 
same date as the translation of the Maha-Bharata ; see 
remark above to note — ^Progress has been made with 
the printing of Nirapeksha’s commentary in the MU, 

P. 273, note 319 On modern Indian music, see now the 
numerous writings of Sourindro Mohun Tagore, Calcutta, 
1875 fF., cf. Jenaer TAt. Zeit., 1877, p. 487. — It is possible 
that the investigation of the gdnas of the Sama-veda, in case 
these are still in actual use and could be observed, might 
yield some practical result for the ancient laukika music 

P. 274, note 321 *. For such representations of Venus, 
supported on the tail of a dolphin, or with a dolphin and 
Cupid behind her, see J. J. Bernouilli, Aphrodite (Leipzig, 
1873), PP- 245, 370, 405. See also numerous representa- 
tions of the kind in the Mus 4 e de Sculpture par le Comte 
F. de Clarac (Paris, 1836-37), vol. iv., pi. 593, 607, 610, 
612, 615, 620, 622, 626-628, 634. 

P. 278, note 327 . Biihler has also published a transla- 
tion of Apastaniba : it is now being reprinted in the series 
of ‘ Sacred Books of the East ’ which is appearing under 
Max Muller’s direction. — Gautama has been edited by 
Stenzler (London, 1876), and is also comprised in Jiva- 
nanda’s large collection ‘ Dharmashastrasamgraha ’ (Cal- 
cutta, 1876), which, air inaccuracies notwithstanding, is 
yet a very meritorious publication, on account of the 
abundance of material it contains. It embraces 27 large 
and small Smriti-texts, namely, 3 Atris, 2 Vishnus, 2 
Han'tas, Yajnavalkya, 2 UiSanas’, Angiras, Yama, Apa- 


stamba, Samvarta, Kdtyayana, Brihaspati, 2 Para^aras, 
2 Vyasas, ^ankha, Likhita, Baksha, 2 Gautamas, and 
2 Vasishthas.— Narada’s Smriti has been translated by 
Jolly (London, 1 876) ; see also his papers, Ueler die recht- 
liche Stellung der Frauen hei den Indern (Munich, 1876), 
and Ud)er das indische Schuldrecht (Munich, 1877)- 

P. 280, note “ 9 . The Aruna-Smriti, Biihler informs me, 
is quite a late production, probably a section of a Purana. 

P. 28 1 . As Taj navalky a enumerates the planets in their 
Greek order (i. 295) the earliest date we can assign to this 
work is the third century a.d. (see remark above to p. 251, 
note following Jacobi). 

P. 284, 5. See remark on Panchdlachanda above, note 
to p. 50. 

P. 288. E. Senart, in- his ingenious work. La L4gende 
du Bouddha (Paris, 1875), traces the various legends that 
are narrated of Buddha (and in part, identically, of Krishna 
also) to ancient solar myths which were only subsequently 
applied to Buddha ; comp, my detailed notice and partial 
rejoinder in the Jervaer Lit. Zeit., 1 876 (29th April), p. 282 ff. 

P. 291, note f. Schiefner’s ‘Indische Erzahlungen,’ 
from the Kagyur, in vols. vii. and viii. of the Melanges 
Asiatiqiies of the St. Petersburg Academy, embrace already 
forty-seven such legends. 

P. 292, note Whether the Buddhaghosha of this in- 
scription is, as Stevenson assumes (p. 1 3), to be identified 
with the well-known B. must still appear very doubtful, 
as the princes mentioned in the rest of these inscriptions 
belong to a far older period; see Bhandarkar in the 
Transactions of the London Congress of Orientalists (1876), 

p. 306 ff. 

P. 293, note *. Sapt suttas Fdlis, tir4s dxh Dighanilcdya, 
from the papers of Paul Grimblot, were published by his 
widow in 1876 (Paris), text with translation. — The 
second part of Fansboll’s edition of the Jataka appeared 
in 1877. — The Mahaparinibbana-.sutta was edited in 1874 
by Childers in the Journal B. A. S., vols. vii. and viii. : a 
separate impression of it has just appeared. The same 
journal also contains an edition of the Patimokkha by 
Dickson. An edition of the whole Vinaya-pitaka by 

Ilerm. Oldenberg is in the press. 

P. 297, note A collected edition of the sacred Augas 



of the Jainas was published last year (1877) at Calcutta 
by Dhanapatisifihajf : the text is accompanied with the 



300, note 


Bvddhist TripitaTca as it is knmm 

(Devonport, 1 876). 

P. 303, note On possible points of connection between 
the Avesta and Buddhism see Jenaer Lit. Zeit., i877» p. 


P. 305, note In Gautama the word hhikshu appears 
expressly as the name of the third of the four dSranuis ; 
in place of it Manu has ycUi. 

Bbbuit. 24(A May 187& 


Akshapdda, 8^;. 245. 
akiluvra^ ^syllable, 15, i6« 

— pbilos., 161. 

AgaBtya, 53. 275 (archit). 

Agni, 31. 40. 63. 159. 178. 303. 

— ehayana^ 120. (274). 

— Purd^^ 191. 231. 271. 275. 281. 

— rahfuya^ 118. 120. 

Agniye^a, 265. 266. 269 (med.). 
Agaisvimin, 79. 

ayta^ 190. 
aghd9^ 248. 

Anga^ 25. 216 («. Veddnga), 296. 
297, 326, 327 (Jain,). 

Afigaa, 147. 

Afigir, 158. 

Afigiras, 31. 53, 153.158, 160.162. 
164, 250. 325 {Sfnfiti), 

— (Jupiter) 250, 

Aflgirasas, 124. 148 ff. 

Aj^ta^tru, 51, 127. 138. 286 (bis 

six teachers). 

— comm., 82. 

atikruihiOf III. 

atikaJoathd^ 292. 

Atri, 31. 38. 53. 102. 103. 140 Ved. 

— 102, 283. 325 (jur.). 

— 269 med. 

— daughter of, 38. 140. 

— hpJvad^j 269 (med.). 

— laghu^ 269 (med.), 

Atharvan, l^l (as prajdpati). 153 

{bfihaspoH and bhagavant). 158. 

— (= Atk. Veda), 78. 
Atharva-ParUiehfae, 249. 251. 253. 


— the forty-eighth Ath. Par., 313, 

316. 317. 318. 

Atharva-ParUishfa, Greek order of 
the planets in the Atk. Pariitshfas, 


— Paippale, 158, 169. 

— PrdtiMihya, 146. 151. 

— Veda, 8.22. 29. 145 ff. 249. 265. 

— iUchare, 164. 

— akhd , 164. 167. 

Atharvaiirae, 154. 166. 169, 170. 
Aiharva- Sar^Ud, 11, 208. 318. 
Atkarvd^lgiraeas, ii. 72. 93. 121. 

127. 149. 150 (ora^a sing.) 
Aiharvd 9 }.a$, 113. 124. 148. 149. 
Atkarmparmh^, 28. 153 ff. 239. 
athd 245. 265. 

Adbhut^harma, 301 (Buddh.). 
Adbhuta- Hrdhmaf^a, 69. 152, 
advaita, 171. 

A dvaUa-mdkaranda, 323. 
adhidevatam, 121. 
adhiyajnam, 121. 
adJiyayana, 8. 
adhydtmam, 121. 
Adaydtmardmdyc^a, 168. 
adJiydya, 14. 31. 32. 107. 117. 
adhydyddin, 66. 
adkvaryu, 14. 8o. 149. 
adkvaryus (pK), 8. 80. 86. 87. 121. 
Ananta, 141 (comm.). 

Anantadeva, lOl 
Anantayajvan, 85. 245. 
aiiaphd, 255 (Greek), 

An^ama^^fe, 24. 32. 33. 61. 64. 65. 
74. 83. 85. 87. 88, 90. 103. 104, 
X07. 143. 144 145. 152. 
Anupada-Sutra, 80, 81, 84, 88. 95. 
Anubrdhmana, 12. 82. 
anubrdkmanin , 82, 

AnubkdtiprakdM , 97, 
Anubhtitisvardpdch^irya, 226. 



aml^amha^ 68 . 

anxLvdJca^ 31. 33. 88. 94. 107. 109. 
124. 145. 

— ^kdnukramani^ 32. 6l. 
anuvydlchydna, 122. 127. 
anui^ana^ 121. 122. 127. 

anu^totra^ 84. 

andchdnay 78. 

Andhaka-Yfisbnayas, 185. 
AndhomatSy 106. 
anvadhydya^ 57. 176. 
anvdJdiy&nay 122. 

Apdntaratamas, 243. 

Apsaras, 125. 

Abhayadeva, 327. 

Abhichdra-Ktd 153. 

Ahhidharma (Biuldh,), 290. 292. 
307 ff. 

A bhidlidna- chin idinaniy 230. 

— ratnamdldj 230. 

Abhiuavagupta, 237. 273. 322. 
abkinimi'u/ctay 278. 
Abkinishh^amana-SUh'ay 300. 
Abhiinanyu, 219. 220. 223. 
abhiyajna^gdthdSy 45, 

Abhira, 3. 

ahhyaiulhtay 122 . 

Amarakoi^ha y 220. 229 flF. 267# 
Aniaracliaiidra, 190. 

Amaradeva, 228. 

Amarasi&ba^ 200. 219. 227 ff« 
Amaru, 210. 

Amita, 306. 

Amitdbha, 298. 306. 

Amitragb^ta, 251. 
Amritanddopanishad, 154. 165. 171. 
Amriiavindii,panishady 154. 165- 
Ambd, 1 14. 134. 317. 

Ambikd, 39. 114, 134, 317. 
Ambillikd, 39. 114. 134.317. 
ayana, 66. 
ayogHj iii. 

Ayodliyd, 89. 178. 224, 

Aruna, 133. “naa, 93. 

— Smriti, 280, 326, 

Aru^i, 93 (and plur.) 

Arkalinas, 33, 

arjunuy Arjuna (and Indra), 37. 50. 
114. 115. 134. 135. 136. 137. 185. 

arjunyauj 248. 

Arthaidstray 271. 273. 275. 
ardhay 73 (inhabited place). 

ardluimdg^hiy 295. 296. 297. 
arhant, 78. 138. 305. 
AlayphAraMstray 231. 322, 

Avaddna, 299. 301 (Buddh.). 
Avalokitefivara, 298. 299. 

avyakUiy 238. 

Avyayavrittiy 227. 
asUipathay 119. 

Aaoka, 179. 273. 290. 291. 
A^vagbosha, 161. 162. 
A 4 vapati, 71. 120. 
aimmedhay 54. 114. 126. 

— <>kdi^ 4 ^y 1 18. 

ASvala, 53. 129. 

Asbd^ba, 133. 

oAitakay 31. 32. 42. 43. 89. 

OBhiddhydyiy 118. 

oawra, 302 {sura formed from), 

— language of the A.’s, i8a 

— Krishna, 148. 304. 

— Maya,' 253, 274. 
dhargar^ay 258. 

ahiy 36. 

ahinay 66. 76. 79. 80. 139. 

Abobalasdri, loi, 

dkdiay 128. 

dkoketay 254. 
dkhydnay 122. 193. 

- vidaSy 45. 

gamaidstray i6l, 

guive^ya, 102, 285* 
guive^y^yana, 49. 53. I02, 

(^neyarti parvay 

figiraBa, 71. 148. 153. 
AfigirasaJ&ilpay 153. 

ddidi'ya, 73. 77. 81. I2I. 

At^dra, 68. 125. 

dr^avay 171. 
dtman, 97. 156. 161 ff. 

— { mahdn)y 238. 

Atfiiaprahodhopanishady 1 66, 167 

Atradnanda^ 42. 

Atmopanishad, 158. 162. 

Atreya, 87-89. 91. 92. 93. 102. 103. 

TaiU.y 153. Ath.y 241. 242. (pbil.). 

265. 269. (med.). 

— kanish(ha^, 269. (meil.). 

— bpihad^y 269. (med.). 

— madhyamay 269. (med.), 

— vriddha^y 269. (med,). 

— (bhikshu), 284. 

Atharva^a, 128, 149. 

— OfiJiya, 152. 

Atharvanikas, 82. 149. 
Atharvaniyarudropanisliady 1 54. 17a 
dditya, 131, 

t iitydniy 131. 
dityad^, 259, 


33 ^ 

Adibuddha, 298. 

dddaj 73. 121. 149, 235, 301. 

Anauda-giri, 51. 243. 

— judna, $1. 
tirtha, 42. 51. 
vana, 168. 

nandavaUi^ 94, 154. 156. 157. 
narttiya, 55. 
ndhras, 94. 

Apastamba, 88, 89 ff. 100. loi. 102. 

317- 325- 

— Dharmas^ray loi. 102. 106. 278. 

, 325. 


dpoklima^ 255 (Greek). 

jitavajra$^^(chij 161. 
bhipratdrina, 136. 
mardja, 261. 

d^ana^ names in, 53, 120. 
AyahstbAna, 130. 

Ayttrve,da^ 265. 267. 271. 
dra, 254 (Greek). 

Aranyalca^ 8. 28, 29. 48. 92* 

— hlnda^ 1 18. 

— jyotishay 153. 

— $amhitdy 65. 

Aran.yagdna, 64, 65. 
Aranya-^aTnJiitdy 316. 

Ardiiii, 285. 

Aru^ia, 93. 

ru^ii, 51. 69. 71. 123. 130. 132 
. 133. 157- 286. 

Arunikopanuhady 163. 164. 
Arunius, 93, 

Arupeya, 133. 157. 
drehika, 63. 65. 66. 

Arjunaka, 185. 

Aryas, 3. 79. 178. 

Aryabhata, 61. 254. 255. 257 ff, 
Aryahhafiyay 61. 257. 
Aryasid^dntay 257. 
Avydpa^ckdMiiy 237. 

Arydsh^aiata, 257. 

Arshay 85, 

Arshikopanishady 162. 

ArsheyorKalpa, 75 - 77 - 

Arsheya-BrOJimanay 74. 313, 316. 
.lambdyaua, 53. 
vantika, 259. 
vantikd, rlti, 232, 
f^drka, 84, 278. 

smarathalj, kalpahy 46. 53, 242. 
Admarathya, 53. 242. 
diranm, ^mopanisluidy 164, 
{})hikshu)y 327. 

Advatarddvi, 133. 

Aivaidyaua, 32. 34. 49. 52 ff, 59. 62. 
80. 85. 101. 106. 169. 266. 

— Kandalya, 1 59. 

— Pay'Uislifay 62, 

— Brdhmanay 49. 

Aivina-iaitrciy 314. 
dh'ini series, 323. 

Asurdyana, 128. 140. 

Asuri, 128. 131. 133. 137. 235. 236 
dskanda, 1 13. 

(ijspliujity 254 (Oicek). 
Asphuji(d)dhvaja (?), 258. 
ikkavdla, 264 (Arabic). 

ifhtmikdy 89. 

Itard, 48. 

ItikdsaSy 24. 72. 93. 122. 124. 127. 
159. 190. 191. 

Itikdsapurd^y 121. 183. 301. 
itthay 254 (Greek). 

Hthi^Uiy 264 (Arabic). 
ityuktay 300. 
inthihdy 264 (Arabic). 
induvdray 264 (Arab.) 

ludra, 32.40. 5^2.63. 123. 127. 176 
(graium.). 186. 21 1. 265 (ified.). 

— and Arjuna, 37. 50. 115. 136. 

185. 186. 

Indrajananiyay 193. 

Indradatta, 293. 

Indradynuiua, 133. 

Indraprastba, 178. 

IndroU, 34. 125. 

Irdvati, 178, 

Uy 108. 

I^na, 45. 110. 

Uopanishady 116. 155. 309. 
ihara, 238. 

Isvara, 272 rans. 

I^varakrishna, 236. 237. 
isardpha, 264 (Arabic), 
uktapraiyuklamy 122. 

vkthay 67. 81. 

vkthdrthay 83. 

Ukba, 91. 

Ugrasena, 125. 135. 
nehekay 257. 

Ujjayini, 185. 201, 209. 252. 257 
259. 295. 

UjjVHl adat-ta, 226. 
utjkdiy 216. 226. 

U ttaratd'pim y 169. 

Uttaramimdnsdy 239 flF, 

U ttarardmacharitay 207. 

VUaravalUy 157, 



uttard, uttardrckiia, 63. 65. 
uUa/rdBhddhd$, 247. 

Utpala, 243. 260. 323. 

Vt^ini, 227. 

Udayana, 246. 
uddttay 314. 
udichyoB, 132. 178. 
udgdtaTj 14. 67. 149. 

Udd^laka, 69. 71. 123. 130. 131 
157. 284, 

Uddjotakara, 245, 

Udbha^, 322, 

Upagranthi-Siiira^ 83. 84. 
Upatishya, 199. 
npadeia, 301 (Buddh.). 
upaditdf 144. 

UpanishadSf 28. 29, 42, 48. 73. 74 
I2I. 127. 153 ff. 235. 277. 

— number of, 154. 155. 

— {Up. Brdhmana)^ 34. 74. 
Upapurd^aSy 17 1, 191. 282. 
Upakkhoy 40. 59. 

Upaveday 265. 271. 273. 
upavydkkydnay 122. 
upaBkdray 244. 
upaBthay 114. 
updkhydnay 73, 122. 

VpdngaBy 297 (Jain,). 
upddkydya, 82. 

— nirapckshdy 271. 

npdmkay ^Btkdj 306. 

Upendra, 303. 
uhkayam antarenay 49. 

Urad, 74. 156. 
uragny 98. 303. 

Urva^I, 134, 207 (drama). 208, 
uldkay 246. 

Uva^ta, 42. 

U^anas (Kdvya), 36, 153. 

— 278. 282. 325 (jur,), 

U^inara, 45, 

Ushasti, 71, 
uBhfray 3. 

Data, 34. 42. 59. 1 1 6. 

Uva^, 144. 

t^hagdnay Ohyagdna^ 64, 
Rik'Sarnhitdy 9. 10. n. 14. 31 flp, 

— and Sdma-S.y readings of, 313. 

— concluding verse of, in the forty- 
eighth Ath. Par.y 313. 

— Kashmir MS., 314, 

— gulitaB in, 314, 315. 
Rigvidhdnay62. 74. (33). 313. 314. 


Rigveda, 8. 33 {rigvxdagaptayc). 45. 
121. 123, 127. 

pichoBy 8, 9. 14. 31. 33. 63. 64. 65 

74 * 75 . 

— number of, 121, 153. 

Riahiy 8 (= Veda). 122. 145. 

— Bfdhmana, 64. 

— mukhdniy 66. 
Ekachdrni, 42. 91. 

dcap&dikdy 117. 

dcamchanay 124. 

tkaJkanBay 129, 

tkdha, 66. 76, 79. 80, 139. 

dccy 134. 140. 

Aikshvdka, 125. 

Aitareya, 48. 49, 56. 70. 85. 

— Brdhmanay 16. 44 ff. 72, 

— "^yakay 34, 62. 

— "^ydranyakay 32. 48 ff. 75. 315, 

— "yins, 49. 8i. 85. 

— ^opaniBhady 48. 155. 

Aitiddyana, 53. 241 (Aita®). 

Aindra (School), 321. 
aind/ram parvay 66 . 
aiharikay 309. 

oviy 158. 160. 161. 163. 164. 

oWmtfcf, 89. 
aukthikay 83. 240. 

Aukhiyas, 88. 

Au^ulomi, 242. 

Audanya, 134. 
audickyay 34. 

Audumbardyaria, 53, 

Audddlaki, 157 (Ved.), 267 (©rot.). 
Audbhdri, 88, 

Aupatasvini, 134, 

Aupamanyava, 75. 

Aupave^i, 133. 

Aupafiivi, 143. 

Aupoditeya, 133, 

Auldkya, 246. 

Aushtrdkshi, 75. 

KanBavadhay 198. 207. 

Kachchdnd (Buddha's wife), 318. 
Kachchdvana, 227. 293. 

Katha, 89. 92. 184; plur. 88,891 


— Kdldpas, 89. 

— 'idUiy 157, 

— idkhdy 89. 

— irutyupanhliOAly 163. 164, 

— Sdtray 99. 100. 

Kta^abhaksha, Kanabhuj, 245. 


Kandda, 244. 245, 246. 
kandikdy 59. 89. 107. 117. 118-120. 

140 (deaf). 



Kanva, 3. 31. 52. 106. 105 (plur.)* 

— Smriti-i^dsiray 143. 

Kanha, 304. 

Kanhi, Kauhdyana, 304. 

Katas, 138. 

Kathdsaritsdgarciy 213. 217. 219. 

Kadru, 134. 

Kanishka, Kaiierki, 205. 218. 219. 
220. 222, 223. 281, 285. 287. 288. 
290. 294. 302. 306. 308. 
kimishfhay 269 { treya). 
kanydkumdrfy 157. 

Kapardigiri, 179. 

Ka|>ardisvdiiiin, 42. lOl. 
kapinjalay 211. 

Kajiila, 96. 137. 162. 2352*. 272. 
284. 308. 

Kapilavastu, 33. 137. 284. 
Kapishtbala, 26^. 268 (med.). 

™ Kathas, 88. 
Kapiskfhala-Samhitdy 88. 
Kabaudha, 149. 

Kabandhin, 159. 

Kambojas, 178. 220, 
kamvdlxiy 264 Arab, 

karatakay 206. 
karaipiy 259 (astr.). 

— k^ihal^iy 261. 262. 

— sdray 262, 

Karavindasvdmin, loi, 

kardUy 159. 

Karka, 14I1 
Kar^dtakas, 94. 

Kar^uta, 276, 

Karmanda, Minaa, 305. 
Ka^*mapradipay 84. 85. 278. 

K ai'mamimdii^ 239 ff. 

Karmargha, 153. 
kald$ (the sixty-four), 275. 
Kaldpa-Suiray 227 (gramm,), 
Kaldpin, 184. 
kaliy 1 13. 283 yuga. 

— era, 205, 260. 261. 

Kalinga, 269. 

Kalindtha, 272, 

kaUyugay 243. 

K^fhi’Purd^ay 191. 
mUirny 16.46. S3. 75. 93. iSZ(Aih,y 
176. 242. 

— kdray 1 44. 

— Sntrasy 16. 34. 75- 100. i02(Ved.). 
297 (Jain.) 317. 

Kalpdnupaday 84. 

Kalba^a, 213. 215, 319. 

Kavasba, 120. 

Kavi, 153 (U&inas). 191. 195. 
Kaviputra, 204. 205. 

Kavirdja, 196. 

kahjapay 140 (having black teetb). 

, Kasyapa, 53. 1 40. 

— 278. 282 jnr. 
kashdya^ 78. 306. 

Kasernmant, 188. 

Kahola, 129. 133. 

Kdiikityana, 1 53 (Ath.). 266. 269 

Kdtbaka, 41. 81. 85. 88. 89 ff. 103. 

3 * 7 - 

— Grihyay loi. 317. 
Kdihakopannhady 93. 1 56, 238. 240. 
kdndday 246. 

kdnday 59. 89. 91. 92. 117 ff, 145. 
Kdndamdyana, 53. 

Kdnva, 103. 106. 113 flf. 142. 143. 

144 (gramm.). 

Kdi^vakay 105. 

Kdnviputra, 105. 

Kdigtvydyana, 105. 

Kddantray 226. 227. 321, 
KdUya-OfVtyay 142. 

Kdliya*Sdtray 91. 99. 100, 142, 
Kdtya, 138. 223. 

Kdtyayana, 53. 61. 80. 83. 84. 107, 
138 ff. (Ved.) 222. 321. (gramm.), 
227 lex. 266 med. 285 (Bmidb.). 
— Smpiti-Sdatra of, 143, 326. 

— Kabandhin, 159. 

Kdtydyani, 127. 138; = Durgji, 

138- 157. 

— putra, 71. 138, 285. 

KiUlambaHy 213, 

KdpUa-Sd^ay 236, 

Kdpya, 126. 137. 223. 236. 237. 284 

Kdmandakiya {NUi-Sdsira)y 271, 


Kdraa-SC^Oy 267. 

Kdmukdyana, 241, 

KdmpUa, I14. I15 ; ®lya, 115. 138, 
Kdmboja, 7^. 

Kdrca^davyuhfty 299. 

Kdrttakaujapa, 266. 

Kdrttikeya, 103 (comm,). 
kdrmikay 309. 

Kdrsbndjini, 140. 241. 242. 

Kdla, 248. 

Kdlaniimayay 262. 

Kdlabavins, 14. 81, 83. 96. 
Kdlayavann, 220. 221. 
Kdld(jnirmlrni:anishady 171. 

Kdldpa, 89. 96. 



Kdlid^a, 195. 196. 200 fF. 209. 228. 
250. 252. 266. 318 f. 

— three RlUdilsas, 204. 

k 6 liy 159. 

K^Lvasheya, I20. 131. 

Kdvilaf 236. 

IcdvyaSy 183. 191. 195. 210. 

Kdvya 36 (U^vnas). 153. 
Kdvyaprakdia^ 204. 232, 
Kdvyddaria, 232, 
Kdvydlamkdra}Ydtly 226. 232. 
Kdsakribsna, 42. 91. 140. 242, 
Kiisakfitsni, 139. 140. 242. 

Kdais, 125. 286. 

Kdiikd, 106. 130. 226, 227. 321. 
KfL 4 l, 269. 283. 

Kj( 4 mlras, 227. 

Kisyapn, 14.3 (gramm.). 245 (phil.)* 
275 (archit.), 
kdBhdyadJidraiuiy 2yj. 
hitava^ iii. 
kiifinara^ 302. 

Kirdtdrjuniya^ 196. 

Kikafas, 79 - 
Kirtidhara, 273. 
ku^aka^ 259. 

Kn^humi, 84. 

Kun^ina, 91. 

— (town), 168. 

Kutapa-Sau 4 ruta, 266, 

kunidpaiuktOy 146. 

Kunti, 90. 

Kubhd, 3. 

Kumdrapdla, 297. 

Kumdrasamhhavay 195. 208. 


Kumdrilabha^^a, 68 . 74 - 24*- 242. 
Kunnirilasvdmin, 100. 
Knmbhamushkas, 303. 
Kumbh{inda«, 302, 303. 

Kurus, 1 14. 123. 135, 136. 137. 

138 (and Katas), 286. 
Kunikshetra, 68. 13b. 
Kuru-Paftchdlas, lo. 34. 39. 45* 
68, 90. 1 14. 129. 132, 135. 186. 


kaladharma^ 278. 
kuUra, 254. 

Kulldka, 281, 

Kuvera, 124, 303, 

Ku 4 a and Lava, 197, 

kiddavay 197. 

Kushmtlndas, 303. 

Knanmapura, 257* 258. 

Kummdnjali, 245. 246. 

btirmavibhdga^ 215. 

Kdshmdndas, 303, 
kfit^ 144* 

113 (y«£fa). 

krUtikd, 2, 148. 247. 248. 304. 32J 

— series, date of, 2. 
Kjrityachinidmani^ 80. 

Krisa, 266 mcd. 

Kri 4 ;isva, ®6vinas, 197. 
krkhna (black), 304. 

Kjrish^a Devakiputra, 71, 104. 148. 

169! 186. 238. 284. 304. 

— and E^layavana, 220. 221. 

— and the Pdn^avas, 1 36. 

— and the shepherdesses, 210. 

— worship of, 7*- *89. 209. 238, 

289. 300. 304- 307* 326. . 

— Angirasa, 71. 148. 

— Dvuipdyana, 184. 243. 

— Asura Krishna, 148. 304* 

— Kfishna Hdrita, 50, 

Kjrishi^ajit, 54. 58. 

Krishnamidra, 207. 

KfiJ^hndjina, 242. 

Krishiadtrcya, 266 med. 

Kekayas, 120. 132. 
ketUj 250. 

KenopauiBhad^ 73, 74. 75 * * 5 ^ 

171- 3 ^ 6 . 

kertwdruma^ 255, 

kevala, 24^. 

— naiydytkay 245. 

Kesava Kddmirabhatta, 323. 

Kedin (Asura), 148. 

Kedi-sddana, ®haD, 148. 

^ KeBaH^ BWfjpgrdmah^ 188. 
kesava^ 304. 

Kaikeya, 120. 

Kaiyata, 56. 83. 93. 95 ^ 223. 224. 

KaivalyopaniBhad, 155* *^9 

Kokila, 280. 

konciy 254. 

Kodala, 160. 185. 192. 193. 324. 
Kosala, 33, 68. 137. 285. 

— Videhas, 34. 39. 132. 134. 135. 


Kohala, 273. 

Kaukdata, 134. 
kaukkuiika, 305, 

Kaundinya, 102. 285. 

Kautsa, 77. 140. 

Kautsdyana, 97. 

Kauthumas, 47. 65. 76. 83. 84. 89 

96. 106. 

Kaudreyas, 140. 

Kaumdrila, 241. 

Kauravya, 39. 123. 135. 136. 



KaurupaiicMIn, 123. 
kaur^a^ 254 (Qrcek). 
KauLopanishad, 171. 

Kau^iilya (Aivalayaua), 159, 
Kauf 5 dmbeya, 123. 

Kau 4 ik;iY 149. 152. 153 {Aih,), 

— (Cumin,), 42. 91. 

Kauabitaka, 56. 

Kmtshitahi^ 46. Sr. 

— "^kdras^yaka^ 50. 54, 

Kiiusblta^, ^kin, 46. 68. 82. 133. 

* 34 ^ 3 * 3 - 

— 26. 44 IJ. 71. 

— Upanithadt 50. 73. 127. 155, 

Kaushitakeya, 129. 

KiiUiialya, 125. 159 ( 4 ). 

Rausunibiiuti, 123. 

Kaulmla, 75. 
kramapdiha, 34. 49. 60. 
kr 'tya^ 254 (Greek). 

Krivi, KraivvH, 125. 

Kniuficha, 93. 

RrauBhtiiki, 61 xnetr. 153. 248 

kllha, III, 
kshairapaii^ 68. 

Ivfiliapn^akR, 200. 

Kshtlrapdrii, 265 wed. 

Kfildraeviltoin, 79. 227. 

Kshudras^ 84. 

KiliUrihopanMad^ 1O5. 
Kalicmaipkani, 213. 

Kaheinendra, 213. 215. 319. 32a 

KsbeuiendrabLadra, 293. 
Kabairakalambhi, 77. 

Kihaudra^ 84. 

Rba^ipka, 88. 

RbndiriiHTiwinf 79. 

Kbaroahfba, 248. 

^'uins 14. 81. 


Khddiragfikya^ 84. 
khila, 92. 97. 107. 130, 144. 249. 
313 f. 

— kdis 4 <^f *27, 128. 130 131. 
khuddakapdihtt y 293. 

Gafigd, SI. 168. 193. 24S, 
Qangit^ara, 142. 

Gangofia, 246. 323. 
yanas^ 225, 266 gramm. 
yanakay 113. 

Oanapatipiirvatdplni^ 17a 
Oanapatyiipanimad^ 154. 170. 
aanapdiha, 138. 225. 240. 241. 242. 



Rhd^yana, S|, 

Qa^ratnamakodadhi^ 226. 
yai^Ua, 159. 
ganUddJvyiiyOy 262. 

Gune^a, 28 1. 

— tdpini^ 1 70. 

Gaiiildbara, 1 4 2. 

Gaudbarva, 272 (Kdradji), 284 (PaA* 
cb:i 4 ikba). 

— [)o'^He.ssefl by a, 126. 

Gan<iliara. 70. 132. 21^, ®ri8, 147. 
Garuda, 171. 302 (pliir.). 

— 191, 

Garndupanishitd^ 1 7 1. 

Gaiga, 153 Ath, 221. 252 ff. (aatr.). 

— piur. 252. 253, 

— Vpddbagarga, I 53. 253. 
Qarbhopaniihad^ HjO. 167. 272. 
galiiaa, 314. 315. 

gallakka^ 206. 
gahanayp gamhhiram^ 233. 
Gdagydyani, 51, 
Odjpi}nUga}fnrvntdpanUia^ 1 70. 
gdthds, 24. 33. 45. 72. 73. 93. 1 2 1. 
122, 124. 125. 127, 132. 184, 

299, 301 Bmidb. 

Qdmu^ 63. 64. 81. 316. 325. 
Gdndkarvav^a^ 271. 272. 
gdyatritampanna, 140. 

Gdrgi VdchnknavS, 56, 129, 

— Saiphildy 214. 251. 

Gdrgya, 56 {Oriltya). 63 ). 

75 (Maaaka), 143 (grainm.). 153 

— and E^dlayavana, 221. 

— Bdldki, 51, 

Gltagovindd^ 210. 

— (tiiHO of euinposition), 210, 
Qu^dd^ya, 213. 

Gupta (dynaaty), 204. 
Gunidevaavdinii), 101. 

Qurjara, 297. 

Quhadeva, 42, 323, 
guhya dddu, 73. 
guhynyi rubnat 1 1 5. 
Gddhdrtharatnawdldy 42, 
Gfitaiimadii, 31. 
gfihastha, 2S. 164. 

Grihyit-tSntniSj 15. 17. 19. 20. 69. 

84. 101. 152. 153. 264. 276. 278. 
gcya, 301 Buddb, 

Geyagdnay 66 . 
gairiknmvulay 264 Arab. 
Gairikshitu, 41. 

Goiukdpiilra, 223 gr. 267 (erot.). 
Gotarna, 244 f\\ (lug.). 

— ^SdtrUy 245. 

336 SA NS KR 1 1 INDEX. 

GoddvaH, 283, 

Gouardiya, 223 gr, 267 (erofc,), 

Ooimtha-lirdlmanay 106. 150. 151. 

152. 304- 

Gopavanas, 140. 
ii opdJ/itdpaniyopaniJiad^ 1 69. 
yopi^ 169. 

(jlopichandanopan ishad^ 1 69. 
Gnbhila, 80. 82. 83. 84. 

— SmrU% 280. 

yoUidhydya^ 262, 

Govardhana, 21 1. 

Qoviiida, coniin., 55. 62. 

— teacher of Saiiikara, 161. 243. 

— svamiii, loi eomiu. 

Gau^lii (style), 232, 

Gandapdda, 161. 167. 236. 243. 


Gantama, 77 (two Q.*a). 

— H- 143 (j «'••)• 

~ 153. 162 (Alh.). 

— 245 (pliil.). 

— 162 (Rishi). 

— Dhai^ma 8$. 278. 281, 

282* 325. 326. 327. 

— {Pitrmedha-Sulra)^ 84. 245. 
Gautimah Sirtikliyuh, 284. 

UauUmas, 137, 

yrantha, 15. 99. 165. 193. 

— (niddnaBamjnaka), 8 1* 
graha^ 67 (Soma-vessel). 

— eclipse, 249. 

— planet, 98, 249. 250. 

— (f>ddagraha)^ 98. 
grdma^ 64. 77. 

Ordmageyaydna^ 64. 65. 
Gha^akarpara, 200. 201. 

Qhora Angirasa, 71. 

Chain hshash tikaldid stray 275 ( 74 - 

chaturaf^yay game of, 275. 

Chaiw - adhydyikdy 1 5 1 i^ddhyd- 

Chatu'rvimatismriiiy 280. 

Chandra, 219. 227. 

Chandraka, 319. 

Chandragupta, 4. 204. 217. 223, 

251. 287. 

— (Gupta dynasty), 204, 
Cliandrabhjigd, 269. 

Chandra-Vydkaraiiay 227. 

Chainy>il, 178. 

ehavakay 87. 

Charaka, 265. 266. 268. 270. 284. 

324. 325 ined, 

CharakaSdkhd, 89, 

Charakas, 87, 88. 164, 
CharakdcLdrya, 87. 1 13. 

Chiirakiidh vary LIS, 87. 133. 1 34. 
Ckara/y^a-vy&hay 95. 142. 153 {Ath,\ 
""charitray 214. 

Cbilkra, 123. 

Cbdkrdyana, 71. 

Cbdnakya, 205. 210. 260. 310. 
clidnddXay 129. 

ChdiiardtaSy 193. 
chdndanayayidhikay 275. 
Chdndrabbiigin, 269. 

Sri-Chdpa, 259. 

Chdntyaniya, 88. 103. 317 {Silcshd), 
Cbfirv^as, 246. 

Chdlukya, 214. 

Chitra, 51. 

Chitraratlia, 68 ( BdbKkani), 
chitrdy 247. 248 (series). 

Chintdma^ivritiiy 2 1 7. 

Chinas, 243. 

Chu^a, 130. 

ChUikopaniskady 165* 
cheUiy 138. 

Chelaka, 138. 

CbaikiWneya, 138. 

Cbaikitdyaua, 138. 

Cbaitrarathi, 68. 

Chailaki, 133. 

Cbyavana, 134. 

Chbagalin, 96. 99. 
ckhandas (Vedic text), 8. 14. 57. 
60. 103. 176, 

— {Sdma-Safiihitd)y 63. 

— metr., 25. 60. 145. 272. 

Chhandasikdy 63. 

Chbandbgas, 8. 66. 81. 86. 1 2 1, 
chkandobhdshdy 103, 
chhandavat, 216. 

Chhagaleya, 96. 102. 155, *yins, 


Chhdgeyas, 96. 
Chhdndogya-BrdJananay 69. 
Chhdndoyyopanukady 70 ff. 155. 
Jayanmohanay 283. 

Jafdpatalay 60. 

Jatfikar^a, 265 med. 

Janaka, 33. 53. 68, 76, 123. 1 24. 
127. 129. 132. 135. 193. 237. 285. 

286 (his six teachers). 
janaka {prajdpati)y 76, 

— saptardtrOy 76. 

Janainejaya, 34. 123. 125. 131. 134. 

135. 136. 186. 

Jandrdana, 303. 
japamdld, 307. 




Jamadagni, 162, JJJ. 

Jayatirtha, 42. 

Jayadeva, 210 (date of). 

Jayabhata, 319, 

Jayaratljii, 322. 

JayaiiiinH, 143. 

Jaydditya, Jayapidiij 227. 322. 
Jardsanidlia, 9S. 

Julada, 150. 

JdtaJca^ astr., 240. 2#o. 

Jdtalm, Bud(lli.,284. 293. 301. 326. 
jdtakarma 7 i, 19. 102. 142. 

jdi% 161. 

Jdt6karnya, 138. 139. 140. 143. 
Jdnaki, 130. 

Jdbdla, 71. 130. 132. 134. 163. 185. 
Jdbdli, 143 (ISmHti). 

JdbdloYiavi shady 163. 164* 168. 

jdmitray 255 (Greek). 
jitumUy 254 (Greek). 

Jisb^ii, 259. 
jiva^ 162. 

JIvagoavdmin, 169. 

Jivala, 133. 

Jivadarmaii, 260. 

jdkay 254 (Greek). 
jentariy 240. 

Jainaa, 214. 217. 236. 244. 293. 
295 S. 

Jaimini, 56-58 (OrUiya). 65 (>Sd- 
mav.). 184. 189. 239 ir. (phil.). 

— Bhdratay 57. 189. 

— Sdtra^ 240 (astr.). 322. 
Jaiminiya, 65. 240. 316, 317. 

— nydyanidldvUUiraj 241. 322. 
Jaivali, 71. 

J^iduablulskaray 253* 

Jndnayajna^ 91. 94. 
Jyotirvid-dbhaTanai 201. 260. 261. 

266. ^ 

JyotUha^ 25. 30, 60. 61. 153 {Araf^~ 
yakal), 249. 25.8. 316, 
jyauy 254 (Greek). 

Takshan, 1 33. 

Taksbadild, 185. 
Tanddlaksihai^a-Sdtra, 83. 84, 
ioAl and tvamy 162. 

TadevopanUhad, 108. 155. 
taddhUciy 144. 

tani/ra ceremonial, 167. 208. 209. 
265. 282. 310, 
gramm., 227. 229. 

— ‘text-book,* 229 (term taken to 
Java). 265. 266. 

taravXy 263 (Arabic). 
tarka, 158. 244. 

tarkin, 244. 

Tidavakd 7 *a~Brdhinanay 316, 
Talavakdras. 74. 
toMiy iasdiy 263. 264 (Arabic). 
Tdjika (~^dstra)y 263 (Arabic). 
Tdi^4<^m {■purdiut/in)y 76. 

Td^din, 61 (gr.), 243. 

Tdndins, 70. 

Tdndydy t 6 ff. 74. 133. 
tdpasdy 129. 138. 

Hdpaniyay Hdpiniy 167 ff. 

Tdrakopanuhady 163. 164. 168. 
Tdrandtlua, 248. 293. 300. 309. 
Tdlavfintanivdsii), lOi. 
tdvuHy 254 (Greek). 
tmy 144. 

tittiriy 87 (partridge), 

Tittiri, 41. 87. 88. 90. 91. 

Tipi^akay 292. 293. 294. 

Tiriipdira, 3. 
tisJtyay 248. 
tiksh^adansk^ray 167. 

Tutdta, °tita, 241. 

Tura, 120. 131 (Kdvasheya), 
Turamaya, 253. 274. 
turiLshkay Turushka, 220. 291. 

itdyakdlay 12. 129. 
T^ovinddpanuhady 165* I 7 ^' 
Taittiriya, 8l. 87, ®yakaa 102. 162 
ilyake). 317 {Prdt), 

— Sarphitdy 88 ff. 108. 248. 

— ^ydranyakay 92-94. 238. 240. 

249 - 303- 

— ^yopanishady 93. 94. 
iaukshtkay 254 (Greek). 

Tautdtika, ^tita, 241. 

Taulvali, 53. 

trayividydy 8. 45* 121. 19 1. 
Trasadasyu, 68. 

Trikdn 4 df 227, 

trikmay 255 (Greek), 

Tripitdkay 292, 

tripun4Tavidhiy 17 1 , 
THpuropanishady 171. 
Tripuj'yupanukady 161. 162^ 
Tribhdskyaratnay 103. 
Tribbuvauamalla, 214. 

Tri^tilanka, 62. 
tretdy 1 13. 159. 

Traitana, 36, 
tvwiii and tiu(y 162. 

Dakaba, 326 ( 5 nifiri), 

Dandin, 213. 232. 

Dattaka, 196, 

Dadhyabcb, 128. 149. 

Dantidurga, 203, 




dampaii, 38, 

Daiianopam^liad^ 1 7 1 . 
dariapitiniamdmti, lOl. 

Damkuvuiraj^chaTi(ay2o6. 213. 250. 

daiat^ 63. 1 24. 149. 

Da^atayiy 83 (comm.). 
daiatayiy plur. dasatayyaSy 32. 

Daiapurusham-rdjya, 123. 

Daiarupay 231, 232. 
Dasaratluijdtalcay 293. 

Dakaramtta^ 293. 

Ddkahdyana, 227. 228. 

D^kshi, Daksbiputra, 218. 228. 
Ddnava, Dftmi, 302. 

Ddlbbya, 85 {ParUlih(a). 143 (gr.). 
ddsaka^ 36. 

Ddsn^arman, 55. 
difjv\jayas, 141. 

Difiiidga, 209. 245. 

Divoddsa, 269. 

dindra, 229. 304 (denarius)^ 

Dipavansa^ 288. 

Duljshanta, 125. 
durudhard^ 255 (Greek), 

■Durga, 33. 41. 42. 63. 

Durgasinha, 226. 

Durgd, 138, 159. 
dushkrita^ 87. 

Dusbtarltu, 123. 
drikdna, 255 (Greek). 
drUya^ 319. 

Dfishadvati, 67. 102. 

Dera, Devayjtjnika, Sri Deva, 141. 

DevaW, 71. 

Devakiputra, 71. 148. 166. 169. 
devajanavidas, 12 1. 
devajanavidyd, 124, 183. 
Devatddhydyay 74. 75, 

Devatr^ta, 54. 

Devadatta, 160. 

Devapdla, 317. 

Devardjayajvaii, 4I. 42, 
Devasviliiiin, 260 (astr.). 

Devdpi, 39. 

Devyiipwnuhad, 154. 17 ^- 17 ^* 
^deUyay 79. 

Daivatay 85. 

Daivdpca, 125. 
dosliapatiy 151. 3*8. 
dyutay 255 (Greek). 

Dyau.^bpitaf, 35. 

Dramida, Dravidilclidrya. 322. 323 
drammay 229 (Greek), 

draha, 79. 

DivCvidas, 94. 

Orabydyana, 53. 79. 84. 282. 

Drttna, 185. 271. 
dvdpara, 113. 151. 243. 

Dviirakdnat bayajvaii, 324. 
Dvivedagafiga, 72. 104. 139. 
Dvaipdyan«a, s. Kpisbna, 
Dbanaipjaya, 232. 

Dhanapatie6ri> 243. 

Dhanurveday 271, 282. 

Dhaneivara, 214. 

Dbanvantari^ 200. 265. 266. 269. 

Dhanvin, 80. 

Dhammapaday 293, 
dh/immapaliydydniy 292. 294, 
Dharmay 176. 276 ff. 

— ^dstraSy 159. 276-283. 

— SidBtra-mrpgrakay 325. 326. 

— Sdtra^y 19. 85. loi, 277 fif, 

3 * 7 - 

dharmaSy loi. 

Dharma, ®putra, ®rdja, 186. 
dharmdchdryay 56. 
Dhdtxi’taramginiy 227, 
DhdtU'pdihay -pdrdyanay 230. 

Dbdnamjayya, 76. 77. 82. 

Dbdrd, 201. 202. 

Dbdvaka^ 204. 205, 207* 
Dbdmrdyana^ 141. 

Dh6rtasvdmin, 79. i(^. 
Dhritardsb^ra (Vaicbitravlrya), 39, 
90. 1 14. 

— king of the K^ 4 is, 125. 
Dhydnavindxlpanishady 165, 
Dbydiiibuddbas, 298. 

dhruvasya pracluilanamy 98. 
vedda (n«A.ia), 264, Arab, 
nakshatraSy 2. 90. 
Nalcskaira-Kalpay 153. 

nakshatradaHay 112. 

Nagnajit, 132. 134. 

Naebiketas, 157, 
naia, 196, 197. 199. 

— Sutrasy 197. 199. 271. 275. 
Nuiula, 205. 1 17. 223. 

Nandikeh'a ra- Upnp urdnay 171. 

Naitiin, 68. 

Narakn, 188, 
nartakay 199. 

Nala, 132. 189. 

Nalodayay 196. 
yavaratna, 201. 

Navabaata, 10 1. 

NMka, 123. 
j N;igas {ndga)y 273. 302. 



Sdgdnanda, 207. 

Ndgdrjuna, 224. 265. 287. 2S8 (date 


Ndge^a, 223. 227. 

Ndgojibha^^a, 223. 224. 226. 
Ndtakas^ 196. 
ndiya^ 197. 200. 

— Sdstra, 231. 
ndnaha^ 205. 281. 
Nddavinddpankhad^ 165. 

Ndrada, 72 (Ved.). iS3(yliA. Par.). 

264 (astr.). 272 (ebytn. and mus.). 

— pakckardtra , 239 * 

— Sikshd^ 61. 272. 

— (--Sffipii), 278. 326. 

NdrasiAha, 167, ^mantra 167. 168. 
Ndiilyana, 94. 123 (purusha), i6o. 

166. 167. 303. 

Ndrdya^a, 54 (comm., several N.’s). 

58 (do.). 141.^ 158 ff. (Upan.). 
Ndrdya^iyopanishadf 93. 157. 166. 

167. 169. 171. 

Ndrdyanopanishad, 166. 170. 
ndrdiaiisiSt 93. I2I. 122. 127. 

nigamaf 8. 

Nigama-PariSishfai 25. 142. 153. 
Nigha^fus, 25. 41. 153 

nitya, 167. 

Niclihivis, 276. 

m'ddna, 81 ( Ve<l.). 301 (Bnddh.), 
Niddna-Sdtra^ 24. 62. 77, 81. 82. 
Nimi) 68, 

Nirapeksha, 325. 

Nirdlambopa n khad^ 1 62, 

Niruhla, ^kti, 25, 26. 41. 42. 44. 
59. 62. 88. 160. 167. 216. 217. 


Nirfiti, 152. 

nirhkuja, 49. 

mf*zvfnam, 161 (frmfAjna). 308 

Ni^umbba, 206. 

Nisliadhas, 132, 

Nisliddas, 77 * 

Niti-Sditras^ 210. 271. 282. 
Nilaka^fha, i88« 189. 

Nilamata, 320. 

N ilarudropanuhad, 171. 

Nfisinha, 167. 168. 

— tdpaniyoj^nishad^ 167. i68. 

Nrisinlia, loi coinin., i68, 

Negas, Naigeyas, 65. 85. 
Naigeifa-Satray 84. 

Naighan^ukas, 25, 85- 
Naiddnas, 8l« 

Naimi^iya, 70. 

Naimisha, ‘^shiya, 34, 45. 54. 59 

68. 185. 

naiydyika^ 245. 

Nairuktas, 26, 85. 

Naishadhiyaj 196. 232. 

Naishidha, 132. 

NyAya, 159. 237, 242. 245. 246. 

— chintdmani^ 246. 323. 

— dariarui, 244. 323. 

— Sutra, 85. 235. 245. 
Pakshilasvdniin, 244. 245. 
PafichcUantra, 206. 212. 215- 221. 

229. 240. 266. 267. 291, 301. 
pailciiada^archa, 122. 

PaiichapaiT^a, 267. 
paTtckamdsTama, 164* 
paiicKalakshana, 190, 
Paiichaviida-Brdliraana, 66 ff. 
Panckavidhi-Siitra, 83. 84. 
Panchavidheya^ 83. 84. 
Pailchaiikha^ 235. 236. 237. 2S4. 
PaiichaHiddhdniikd y 259. 

Pjiuchdliis, lO. 90. 1 14. 1 15. 125. 
135. 136. 

Paftchdlacha^^a, 50. 315. 326. 
paiichdlapadavpitti y 34. 

Paflchdla Bdbhravya, 10. 34. (erot. 

paflchikdy 44. 

pafala, 59. 82. 84. 

Pataipcbala, 126. 1 37. 223. 236. 
237- 284. 

PatamjaU, 87. 219 ff. 231. 277. 321 

— 137. 223. 231. 237 (1. (pbiU). 

"^patha, 1 1 7 . 

padakdTQy 91. 

padapdiha, 23. 33. 43. 49. 60. 


padavpUtiy 34. 

Paddhatky 55. 59. 85. 102. 141. 

142. 143. 145. 317- 
Padma-Purdnay 191. 

Padinayoni, 153, 
panaphard, 255 (Greek). 

Para, 68. 1 25. 

Parama/mnsrt, Viansopianishady 163. 

Paramddi^vara, 257 - 
parameivaray 162. 

Pard 4 ara, 44. 143. 185. 252. 260 
(astr,). 265. 266 (med.). 

— 278. 280 [laghu and 

v^iddha), 326.. 

Parikshit, 136. 



Paritia^ 293 (Buddh.) . 
jmribkdslids^ lOI, 140. 144. 222. 

Paribhdslienduiehhara^ 226. 
parivrdjahay 112. 147, 164. 
PariHshtas^ 60. 62. 69. 75. 84. 85. 
loi. 107. 142. 146. 149. 150. 

151- 153 - 317- 

Parisema^ 119 (Satap, Br.), 
Parthavas, 4. 188. 318. 
parvaUy 66 124 {Athar^ 

ran, &c.). 146. 149. 183. 184. 
Parsn, 3 (.4). 

""paliydydni, 292. 294. 

Pavaua, 272. 

Pu. 4 iipati 4 arm:ui, 54. 

Pahlavas, 187. 188. 318. 
Piinchardtra, 238. 

PdUchavidhya, 83. 

Pd&chiila, 267. 
pdfiehdli, 34 (gr.). 232 (rttt). 
Pdfichdlya, 138. 

Pd!kchi, 133. 

P^^aliputra, 217. 237. 251. 258. 
290. 295. 

PdiimoJckkasutta^ 293. 326. 
pdiha^ 22. 49. 103. 

Pilnini, 3. 8. 12. 15 26. 41. 57. 59. 
61. 77. 82. 87. 216*222. 232, 239. 
241, 242. 245. 249. 266. 281. 
3*8. 321. 

— posterior to Buddha, 222. 305. 

— posterior to Alexander, 221. 

Pdniniyd Sikshd, 61. 272. 
P^davas, Pdn^us, 39, 98. II4, 1 1 5. 

126. 135. 136. 137. 185, 186. 

pdnditya, 129, 161. 
pdthonay 254 (Greek), 
pddoAy 161 (the four), 

pdpr^an dzuray 318. 

Pdra^avya, 3. 

Pdrasikas, 188. 220. 

Pdraskara, 66. I42. l ^3, 318. 
Pdiiisdrinas, 143. 305. 

PdrdAaviyaj 305, 

Pdrd^rya, 143, 305 (Bhikzhu'Su* 


— (Vydsa), 93. 184, 185. 240. 243, 
l^ilrd^irydyana, 243. 

P^i'ikshi, 284. 

PdrikslnUSj^tiyas, 34. 125. 126. 135. 
136. 186. 

Pdrikshita, 136. 

Pdli, 288. 292. 293. 295. 

Pdsnpata, 238. 

Pingala, 46. 60. 231. 256. 
pifaka, 290. 304. 309. 
pi^dapitrif/ajuay 19. 55. 
Pindopanishady 171. 
pitdmahay 303. 
pitrUarpanay 55. 

Pitfibbtiti, 141. 
pitpimedhay 108. 198, 

— SMray 84. 245. 
pittay 266. 

Pippaliida, 153. 159. 160. 164, 
Piyadiisi, edicts of, 6. 76. 178. 203, 
252. 253. 292. 295. 
pdUy 229 (Persian). 
puMchally Huy III. 1 12. 

>u^ra, 71. 131. 285. 

Punarvasu, 265, 

Pnrdnas (Ved.), 24. 72. 93. 121. 
122. 124. 127. 159. 190. 

— 190. 191. 195. 206. 207, 213, 
215. 282. 

purdnam Tduadamy 76. 
purdimprolctay 12. 129. 

Purukutsa, 68. 125. 

puruzhay 162 (the three j), *8, phil,), 

237. 238. 

— Ndrdyana, 123. 1 24. 

— medkay 54, 87. 90. 108. ill, 

— sdhtay 65, 108. 155. 

punizhottaTmy 168. 

Purdravas, 1 34. 

purohUay 150, 

PulMa, 253. 254. 255. 257. 258. 

Pushkara (?), 262. 

Pmhpa-Sutray 82. 84, 

Pushyaniitra, 224. 
paid (filthy) rdcA, i8o, 

Pdrna, 98. 

Pdrvamimdnsdy 239 fif. 
Pfithddakasvdrain, 259. 262, 
prishihay 67. 
pekkha, 319. 

Paingalopanisliady 171. 

Paingi, Paingiii, Paingya, 14, 41, 
46. 56. 81. 90. 130, 134. 184. 

Paingyay the, 46. 

Paitdmahaz i ddh dntay 258. 

ymipptdcy 158. 169. 

Paipp.ddda, 146. 150. 152. 160. 
Paila, 56. 57. 58. 

PaUdckahhdzhyay 91. 
paUdchi hhdzkdy 213. 

Potalay 285. 

PaidUasiddhdntay 253. 254. 258. 
259. 260. 



paulkam^ 1 29. 

Paushkarasddiy 102. 285. 
Pauslikaldvata^ 268. 

Paushpiip^y^* 240. 
Pamhyac^riia, 318. 

^rakHt% 177. 237, 
prachalanam^ 98. 
lYajiipati, 76. 97. 137. 151. 244. 
prajnapti^ s. Siirya^ 297. 
Pi'aTiavopaniskad, 154- 165. 
Pratijnd- FaviHshtay 102. 106. 115. 

Pratithi, 56. 
pratibuddhay 129, 138, 

Pratisbthdna, 214. 

PratikdrarSutra^ 83. 

Praithdi'ya^ 299 (Buddh.). 
pratfiniia^ 49. 

PratyabkijfldJdstra, 322. 
prapdfhaka^ 63. 64. 65, 66. 76. 79. 
80. 81. 82. 83, 84. 89. 97. 1 1 7. 
MS- 151* 

Prabodhackand/t*odaya, 207. 241. 
Praniagaipda, 79. 
pramdTUlf 28. 244. 
prayogat^ 102. 
pravachana^ 12, 83. 85. 131. 

jiravarakhan 4 <U 240. 

pravarddhydifay 142. 317 (^Td^A.)- 
pravargya^ 108. 119. 139. 
Pravdlia^a, 71, 
pravrdjaka^ 285. 
pratT(^‘i^d, 281. 305. 
pravi^djin, 129, 

Pra^ntai^ga, I41. 

89. 100. 1 01. 102. 
Prainopanishad, 58. 158 fF, 
Prasthdnabhcda, 267, 271. 275. 
prdkfita, 177. 

— prakdia, 227. 

Prdchyas, 34. 132. 178. 

Prdchya- Kashas, 88. 

— Pd^hdlUhu, 34, 
Prdndgnihotropanuliadj 154. 162, 
Pnitipiya, 123, 

Prdtiiiodhiputra, 112, 

PrdtiidJAya - SHtras^ 23. 26, 59 

{Rigv.). 83 (8!dwiav.), 102 {Taiii.), 
143 (F^^aa.). 151 {Atk.). 

Prdtitheyl, 56. 

pi'dmdwUy 28. 

prdyaschUta^ 84. 118. 139* 

prt^ihaiuika^ 3x9. 

Proti, 123. 

Prau 4 ha~Brdhmanat 74. 
Pldkshiyana, 53, 

phalguna, 1 15. 134. 136. 
phdigunyasy 248. 

PhipSiUrcLS^ 226. 

Phulla-SHtra^ 83. 
baUe^iyay 236. 

%adhay \‘adha, 196. 198, 
bandkUy 12. 124. 

Babhru, 56. 

Barkn, 133. 

Balabhadra, 261. 263 (schol.), 
Balardma, 192. 
bahuvachanay 124. 

Bahvfichas, 8. 66. 86. 89. 121. 122. 
Bahvficha-Parmshtay 62. 
Bahvricha-Brdhmaruiy lOO. 

Bilna, 99. 204. 205. 207. 213. 214. 
232. 319. 

Badard-yaiia, 53. 140. 239 AT. (phil,), 
266 (med.). 

— (astr.), 260. 

— SMrcty 163. 

Badari, 139-140. 241, 242. 
Bdbhravya, 10. 34 (Ved.). 267 


BdrltaddaivatUy 72. 

BdrhoBpatyay ^SiUrUy 246, 

Biilakfisb^a, 91. 

bdlakh‘dya$ (s, vdla!^)y 97, 
Bdla-Bhdratay 190* 

Biildki, 51. 

Bdverujdtakay 3. 

Biishkala, 313. 

Bdhikabhisbaj, 269. 

Bdbikas, 33, 96. 1 32. 178. 218. 

Bdhlika, 68. 

Bilba^a^ 214. 232. 319. 

Bukka, 42* 

Budila, 133. 134, 

buddka (awakened, enlightened), 

27. 167. 241. 284. 

— fdztray 241. 

Budiiba, 3. 56. 98. 102, 138. 184. 
199. 200. 217 ff. 236, 241. 256. 
273. 283 fif. 

— date of Buddha*s death, 217- 

220, 287-288. 302. 

— posterior (?), or prior, to Pilniui, 

3. 222, 305. 

— lived in the Sutra period, 290. 

301 f. 

— wife of, 318. 

— and Kfisbna, 326. 

Buddhagayd, 228. 273. 
Buddbagboslia, 292. 293. 326. 
Buddhaddsa, 267. 

Buddhasdsana, 236. 



hvddhopiUahay 305. 

\Jhudh^ 27. 

— with^a/i, 129. 

Budha, 278. 282 (jnr.). 
Bjnhaj-jdtaka^ 259. 260. 

— jdhdlay 163, 

BHhaUKaihdy 213. 

— Sarrihiid, 203. 204. 259 ff. 271. 

Brihad-Atri^ 269. 

— Aireya^ 269. 

— Aranyaka^ 70. 71. 72. 73. 

100. 119. 127 ff. 139. 155. 2<S5. 

— uttaratdpiyii, 169. 

— dcvatd^ 24. 33. 41. 62. 81. 88. 
314, 316. 

— Ydjnavalkya, 281. 

Bfibadratha, 97, 98. 
brihayity 280. 

Brihan- ndydyariojmniskad, 156. 157. 

— ManUy 279, 

Hrihaspati, 153 (Atharvan). 

" Smriiiy 278. 2S0 (lagku), 326, 
Baijavifpi, 266 (ined.)., s. Vaija- 

IJo^Ua, 236. 

Bodbilyana, 322. 323. 

Bodhisattvas, 298. 301. 307. 310. 
Bauddbas, 108. 158. 

Baudh.'lyana, loo, loi. 102. 1 12. 
1 14. 317. 324. 

— Dharmay loi, 102, 278. 
Brahmagupta, 61. 202. 25S ff. . 
brahma-chdriny 28. 112, 123, 164. 

— jdlmAlra, 300. 

hroAviariyay i66. 

Jb’abniadatta, king, 138. 286 (three), 

— 55 (coinin.), 
brahmaiiy etymology of, ii. 

— iicut., prayer, formula, ll, 149. 
Divine Power, 6. 127, 161. 

171, 242. 

— masc., Supreme God, 6. 97. 15 1. 
158. 161. l66. 167. 170, together 
with Vishnu and Riulra, 97. 161, 
with Vishnu and Siva, 167. 180. 

chief priest, 123. 149. 

Brahma-pura, 169. 

bandbu, 78. 79. 112. 141. 

miindihdy 240. 241 fi' 

VUly I 6 I . 

vidyopanishad^ 164. 

vindilpanishad, 99, 158, 165. 
vedcy 149. 150. 

BroJimavaivarta-PurdnOf 191, 

— Siddhdntay 258. 

— SMray 70. 96. 242 flF. 308. 322. 

— hatydy 125. 126. 

Brahmdnandi, 322. 323. 
Brahmopanishady 160 ff. 
hrdhma Sphutasiddkdntay 259. 
brdhmanay neut, (appellative ; * 
jdanation/ ‘section of a text'), 

76. 93. 1 1 7. 124. 152. 

work, 8, II-15. 76. 159. 176. 

239. 240. 

— masc., III. 161 (nature of a Br,), 
176 (two languages), 180 (na 
7 td€clthet)y 276. 

— svaray 1 76. 
hhahtiy 238. 

Bhagadattay 188. 

BhagavaiUSdtray 297. 

Bhagavadgitdy 169. 235. 238. 242. 
hhagavanty 121. 153 (Atharvan), 

160 (Afiigiraa), 169 {mahddtvahy 
284 (Buddha, &c.). 

Bhaglratha, 193. 

Bhatagha^, 293. 

Bhatta, 42. 96. 91. 241 ; s. Bh^ts* 

Bha^^a-ndrdyaua, 207. 

Bhaflirkdioyay *196, 

Bha^^oji Dikshita, 89. 226. 
Bhaitotpala, 242. 243. 258. 259 ff, 
Bhadatta, Bhadanta, 260. 
Bhadrabdhusvdmin, 297, 
Bhadrasena, 286. 

Bharata, son of Duhshaiita, 125. 

— plur. 1 14. 125. 

— 231 (rhet.). 272 (inus.). 
Bharatasvaniin, 42. 65. 79. 
Bharatlvdja, 31. 162. \ 6 '^{U}ian.). 

— (Kapishtliala), 265. 268 (med,), 
Bhartfiyajna, 141, 

Bhartfihari, 209. 210, 

Bhallu, 95. 

Bhava, 178. 
bhavanty 121. 284. 

Bbavabhiiti, 159. 200. 205. 206, 
207. 319. 

Bhavasviiinin, 42. 79. 91, loi. 
BhasTmjdbnlay 163. 

Bbdgavata, 238. 

— Purdnuy 191, 

Bhdgavitti, 130. 

Bhdguri, 62. 246. 

Blidntjilayana, 77, 

BkdnuUly 322. 

Bhdrata, 56. 176. 185. 



6 h&radv 4 ja, 100-102 {TaUt). 139. 

140. 158 {AtLy 271 (Drona ?). 
Bkdradvdjiya-Siitra, lOO. 317* 

Bh^ravl, 196. 319, 

BMruchi, 323. 

Bhdrv;n 4 dni idmdni^ 1 70. 

Bhdrgava, 150. 153. 159 (Vaidar- 

bhdrgava^ 250 (astrologer). 
Bhillavina, 14, 62. 81. 95. 134. 
Bhdllaveya, 95. 126. 134. 
Bhdliavyupaniskadt 95. 154. 164. 

hhdshd, 57. 103. 144* 176- * 77 - 
Bhdshika-Siitra, 68. 95* 
hhdshika~ 8 vara, 176. 

Bhdshya, 56. 57. 144. 176. 

Bbdaa, Bhdsaka, 205, 

Bhdskara, 229. 261 If. 

— mi^ra, 42. 90. 91. 94- loi. 103. 


Bhdsmtikara^a, 261. 

bhikshd^ 123. 305* 

hhikshdka, 305. 

bhikshdchara, •charya^ 129. 305, 
bkUcthUf ^kihxinl^ 284. 285. 305. 306. 


— Sdtra^ 143. 252. 305. 306. 

Rhilla, 259. 

Bhltnasena, 125. 135. 

Bliisliina, 39. 

hhMayanay 98. 

bkdrja, '227. 263. 3 ' 4 - 3 i 7 * 

Bhrigu, 53, 153. 241. 

— plan, 148. 240. 241. 

— 94. 154 ' * 5 ^- ^ 57 * 

Bhela, 265. 270 (au'd,). 

bhaikshay 305. 

bhauhajyaSy \$ 2 , 
bhogandthay 42. 

Bboja, 195. 202 (more than one). 

— king of Dbdnl, 201. 202. 203, 
215. 228. 230. 261. 319. 

— 269 ined. 

— VTuldka^, 269 (iiied.). 

Bbojadeva (reputed author of tbe 
Saras val ika nthd bkarand) ,210, 
Bhqja'prahandhay 215. 
bhrashtay 226. 
mcdcara, dolphin, 252, 

inakhay 127. 

Magadba, 79, 98. 1I2. 147. 269 
(weigbtfl). 286. 287. 290. 292. 
295. 296. 

— vdsin, 112. 

Magas, 148. 

MagbaBTdmiD, 80. 

maghds, 248* 

Mankba, 319. 

Mafijndri, 298. 

mai^iy 140. 

Mapikai^ikd, 168. 

mandaliiy 31. 32. 34. 43. 64. 82. 

Manddka, 49. 

Matsya, 95. 

Mathui^, 169. 

Madras, 126. 137. 223. 

Madragdra, 75. 

madhuy 128. 

Madktt-kdnday 15* 1 27 ff* 13^* 

— Brdkmanay 128, 

Madhuka, 130. 

Madhuaddana, 166. 

— Sarasvatl, 267. 271. 
Mndhyatdpiniy 167. 169, 
Madbyadeda, 102. io6. 115. 133. 
madJiyaTfiUy 269 (Atri), 280, 

— kdnda, 118. 119. 

madkyamikdy 89. 

Madhyavalliy 157. 
manaiy 264 Arabic. 

Manittha, 260 (also with 9). 

Mann, 134, 211 (and the fish). 277 

— Code of, 20. 73. 102. 143, 183. 
188. 238. 244. 249. 266. 276 If. 

— 99. 

t/tanira, 8(= Veda)* 176. 

— rdjay 167. 168. 

Mamma^a, 204, 232. 322. 

(aswra) Maya, 253. 254. 260. 275. 
Maricbi, 244. 

Maru, 188. 

Maruts, 40. 43. 
markaia, 211. 

Malayade&i, 55. 

mallakay 206, 

MalJindtha, 195. 209. 

Madaka, 75. 76. 83. 84. 

Mabdkanha, 304. 

Mabdkdia, 209, 

MahdkaushUaki- Brdh mana, 47. 
makdjdbdlay 163. 185 (Mahdj.). 

Mahddcva, 45, 123. 169. 

Mabddeva, lOO. loi 141 (coiuui.i 
262 (astr.). 
mahdndtmdy 238. 

— devahy no. 123. 
mahdndgay 302. 

Muhdndma, 293. 
McJidndrdyanopanishady 154* 

Mcdui^Brdhmanay 74* 138.