Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c10: Chapter V. Brahmanical and Kṣatriya Tradition

Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c10

Language
English

Chapter V. Brahmanical and Kṣatriya Tradition

c10.2

So far tradition has been considered in its more general aspect, but a survey of ancient Indian tradition discloses the fact that great differences exist in the character of its multitudinous tales; and we may examine now the main features, according to which traditions may be classified.

c10.3

The first classification that obviously presents itself is the broad division into the two groups, traditions that are mythological and those that profess to deal with history. Instances of the former are Soma's abduction of Bṛhaspati's wife Tārā and the birth of their son Budha,² the birth of Ilā from Manu's sacrifice,³ and the marriage of Śiva and Pārvatī.⁴ With such we have nothing to do here, though myths that explain the origin of the chief races said to have ruled ancient India may suggest clues for exploring the earliest conditions.

c10.4

² Vā 90. Bḍ iii, 65. Br 9. Hv 25. Viṣ iv, 6, 5–19. Bhāg ix, 14, 3–14. Ag 273, 8–11. Mat 23, 29 to 24, 3. Gar i, 139, 1–2.

c10.5

³ Vā 85, 5–9. Bḍ iii, 60, 4–8. Hv 10, 615–22. Br 7, 3–8. Viṣ iv, 1, 6–8.

c10.6

⁴ Mat 154. Br 36. Pad v, 40. Var 22. Vā 92, 29–35. Bḍ iii, 67, 32–9.

c10.7

Taking then traditions that profess to deal with history, we find that many tales are manifestly and essentially brahmanic, such as the story of Vasiṣṭha, Viśvāmitra and king Triśaṅku in the Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa,¹ that of Viśvāmitra and king Hariścandra in the Mārkaṇḍeya (7 and 8), and that of king Hariścandra, Rohita and Śunaḥśepa in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa² and Śaṅkhāyana Śrauta Sūtra.³ Others are plainly kṣatriya tales, such as the ballad of king Satyavrata-Triśaṅku, Vasiṣṭha and Viśvāmitra in the Puranas (p. 38), that of king Sagara in the Puranas (p. 38), and that of Bhīṣma and Ugrāyudha in the Harivaṃśa (p. 37). Others again are neither kṣatriya nor brahmanical precisely, but combine features of both those classes and are thus of a mixed or intermediate character, such as the story of Agastya and Lopāmudrā (p. 38), that of king Mitrasaha Kalmāṣapāda,⁴ and that of king Janamejaya II Pārikṣita who hurt Gārgya’s son.⁵ And there is a fourth class, namely, stories which have obviously been devised in order to explain names.

c10.8

¹ MBh i, 175, 6651–91: cf. ix, 41, 2301–6; 43: Rām i, 52, 1 to 55, 10.

c10.9

² vii, 3, 1 f.

c10.10

³ xv, 17–25.

c10.11

⁴ MBh i, 176, 6696 to 177, 6791. Viṣ iv, 4, 19 f. Bhāg ix, 9, 18–39. VN 9.

c10.12

⁵ Vā 93, 21–6.

c10.13

The contrast between the stories about Triśaṅku, Vasiṣṭha and Viśvāmitra shows clearly that there were two classes of tradition, the brahmanic and the kṣatriya (see p. 6). This is only what might be naturally expected. This distinction in tradition, brahmanic and kṣatriya, is very important and may be paralleled by the difference between legends of saints and tales of chivalry. Brahmanic tradition speaks from the brahmanical standpoint, describes events and expresses feelings as they would appear to brahmans, illustrates brahmanical ideas, maintains and inculcates the dignity, sanctity, supremacy and even superhuman character of brahmans, enunciates brahmanical doctrines and advocates whatever subserved the interests of brahmans;⁶ often enforcing the moral by means of marvellous incidents, that not seldom are made up of absurd and utterly impossible details. It often introduces kings, because kings were their chief patrons, yet even so the brahmans’ dignity is never forgotten. Kṣatriya tradition, on the other hand, speaks from the kṣatriya standpoint, describes events and expresses feelings as they would appear to kṣatriyas, is concerned chiefly with kings and heroes and their great deeds, and displays the ideas and code of honour of kṣatriyas. It notices rishis who came into contact with kings, but otherwise is not much concerned with the life and thoughts of rishis. Kṣatriya tales do often indulge in the marvellous, but their marvels are generally mere exaggeration without any didactic purpose; and kṣatriya tradition, even when magnifying the glory of kings, does not disparage brahmans but acknowledges their character and position, though not in the excessive terms often employed in brahmanic tales. Kṣatriya genealogies are of necessity of kṣatriya origin.

c10.14

⁶ Pad ii is a good example of brahmanic matter; also BV iv, 24 f.

c10.15

The difference between the two kinds of tradition is best brought out where fortunately both the kṣatriya and the brahmanic versions exist. That is found in the stories about Triśaṅku, Vasiṣṭha and Viśvāmitra. The kṣatriya ballad gives a simple and natural account of Triśaṅku’s fortunes as affected by those two rishis, while the brahmanical versions are a farrago of absurdities and impossibilities, utterly distorting all the incidents.¹ But it is rare that the two aspects of a story are presented so characteristically, and what is found very often is a story which suggests that it was a kṣatriya version which has been subsequently revised according to brahmanic ideas—that is, a story of the third or intermediate class. The legend of Sunaḥśepa presents different stages of this process.² Thus kṣatriya tales sometimes exist without brahmanic counterparts, such as the above story of king Sagara, many brahmanic tales exist without kṣatriya counterparts, and the intermediate class is abundant.

c10.16

¹ Discussed in JRAS, 1913, p. 888: 1919, p. 364.

c10.17

² Discussed in JRAS, 1917, p. 44. An absurd instance of brahmanical fancy is the story of Yayāti and his four sons (misnamed), Pad ii, 64 to 84.

c10.18

Another marked difference appears between kṣatriya tales on the one hand, and brahmanical tales and tales of an intermediate character on the other hand. In kṣatriya tales there is generally some historical consistency, but the two other classes are generally deficient in the historical sense, often revealing a total lack of it. This lack of the historical sense in ancient Indian literature is a commonplace (p. 2), but it does not hold entirely good as regards kṣatriya tradition. Before the invention of writing, genealogies, ballads and tales are practically the only literature of an historical kind that can exist. Genealogies are essentially chronological; and the old tales, especially those narrated in the course of the best versions of the genealogies, have also an historical character. Royal genealogies certainly do not lack the historical sense, and those kṣatriya tales and ballads are generally consistent in their historical conditions. Since the brahmans did treasure up and hand down the ancient hymns, there is nothing impossible in holding that the sūtas also displayed similar care in preserving traditions committed to their charge, as pointed out in chapter II, until the Purana was compiled, and there were men and brahmans who made old tales and genealogies their special concern.

c10.19

The lack of the historical sense was a special characteristic of the brahmans. The Vedic texts, notoriously, are not books of historical purpose, nor do they deal with history (p. 2). Before the introduction of writing the brahmans had, like every one else, to rely on tradition when referring to preceding times, and, even after writing was introduced, they discountenanced it so far as their religious books were concerned. There is no want of references to prior events in the Rigveda as well as some to contemporaneous occurrences, and allusions to bygone men and events were necessarily drawn from tradition, such as those to Nahuṣa, Yayāti and others, who were ancient even then. So also the mention of Yadu, Turvaśa (Turvasu), Druhyu, Anu and Pūru is generic, referring to the families and kings descended from them, and not to the progenitors themselves, who had passed away into tradition even then. Similarly as regards Bharata, his descendants are introduced, but he himself was a bygone figure.

c10.20

The lack of the historical sense, especially among brahmans, while on the one hand it failed to compose genuine history or fabricated incorrect stories and fables, on the other hand has been of valuable service in that it often neglected to revise or harmonize historical tradition. Positively it was a defect, negatively it was often a safeguard, with the result that the Puranic brahmans preserved a large mass of kṣatriya and popular tradition, which was inconsistent with brahmanic stories and tenets, and the bearing of which thereon they did not perceive. Thus not seldom they unconsciously passed on traditions which are a check on brahmanic statements and often refute much of them. When we seek for explanations of the lack, differences of opinion arise. It was not for want of history. There were plenty of historical events in the earliest times (p. 3).

c10.21

A reason assigned for the lack is that ‘the Brahmans, whose task it would naturally have been to record great deeds, had early embraced the doctrine that all action and existence are a positive evil, and could therefore have felt but little inclination to chronicle historical events’.¹ But, as already pointed out, that was not the task of the brahmans but of the sūtas, and what they preserved was incorporated in the Puranas. When the literature of tradition passed into brahmanic custody later, the brahmans were prevented in two ways; first, since the Puranas dealt with ancient tradition, they could not incorporate into them the doings of later kings; and secondly, the above reason applied from the time when the brahmans embraced that doctrine, namely, in and after the age of the Brāhmaṇas and Upaniṣads, when, according to tradition as already explained, Puranas had been compiled.² Thenceforward they added no fresh historical events beyond incorporating the account of the dynasties of the Kali age. That doctrine, and its consequence that men should strive to be rid of further existence, was later than the Rigvedic age. The primitive doctrine was different. Asceticism has been practised ardently in India at all times, but its object varied. Under that doctrine it became the means of training the body and mind to a condition which ended virtually in non-existence; but in ancient times the rishis aimed at acquiring superhuman faculties and powers or the reputation of possessing them, and asceticism was the means by which that could be attained. During all that time it was the sūtas who preserved tradition.

c10.22

¹ Macdonell, *Sanskrit Literature*, p. 11.

c10.23

² This will be shown further in chap. XXVI.

c10.24

There have been, broadly speaking, three classes among brahmans throughout Indian history, namely, (1) the ascetic devotee and teacher, the rishi or muni; (2) the priest and spiritual guide of kings, nobles and people; and (3) the minister of state, royal officer, and those who followed secular employments. The first was the brahman *par excellence*, the saint; the second the priest and preceptor; and the third the semi-secular brahman and sometimes wholly a layman. The first class, devoting itself to an ascetic life, lived apart in secluded hermitages. The second dwelt in cities and towns, ministering to their royal and other patrons, and conversant with what went on around them; they were not ordinarily religious thinkers. The third class were busied chiefly or altogether with mundane affairs, and were practically brahmans only by caste;¹ they do not concern us here.

c10.25

¹ See lists of brahmans to be excluded from śrāddhas, Manu iii, 150 f. : MBh xiii, 23, 1582–93 ; 90, 4275–80 : Var 190, 84 f. Such brahmans are often alluded to. Veda-varjita cultivators, Pad iv, 110, 403–4 : cultivators, 113, 204 ; vi, 181, 74. Raṅgopajīvin, Vā 101, 164. Kitavāgraṇī, Pad vi, 184, 41. Engaged in vaiśya occupations, MBh xii, 78, 2917 f. : Pad vi, 177, 2–3 ; 238, 6–7, 15–20. An-āmnāya-vid, Pad vi, 171, 31. Cf. MBh xiii, 33, 2094–5 : Pad v, 44, 11 f.

c10.26

Kings performed sacrifices through their own priests, but invoked the aid of celebrated rishis also on special occasions as various stories show. Both the first and second classes appear to have composed the Rigvedic hymns, but the Brāhmaṇas and Upaniṣads were the product of the meditations and speculations of the first class. These men lived away from the world, immersed in spiritual problems and in close relation to the influences of Nature. Their religious rites, meditations and questionings were deeply and continuously concerned with the divine; the gods were very real to them. Mythology therefore was not an abstract subject, but as real to them as Nature. On the other hand, kings and political life belonged to a sphere with which they had nothing to do and of which they knew little or nothing personally; and political vicissitudes did not affect them. All that they knew of such matters was what penetrated into their seclusion through popular report and tale, mere hearsay, often less real to them than mythology and of far less importance. There was no vivid distinction between history and mythology, and naturally there was a constant tendency to confuse the two, to mythologize history and give mythology an historical garb. We can thus see why there was a total lack of the historical sense among the brahmans who composed the brahmanical literature. It is of course authoritative on the religious matters of which it treats, but one cannot extend its authority to secular matters.

c10.27

The lack of the historical sense was a fertile source of confusion. It displayed itself in various ways that will be noticed now, and many other illustrations will present themselves in future chapters.²

c10.28

² e. g. The Maruts and Bharata, chap. XIII. The birth of a Vasiṣṭha and an Agastya from Mitra and Varuṇa, chaps. XVIII and XXII. Janamejaya II and his three sons, chap. IX.

c10.29

First, it confused different persons of the same name. Preliminary confusion between two different persons, Bali, the Ānava king of the Eastern region, and Bali Vairocana, the demon king, is found in the story of the former,¹ where three Puranas call him Dānava and Vairocana,² in spite of the fact that they give his genealogy as Aṇava and make no mention of any Virocana among his ancestors. Further confusion is seen in the allusions to ‘king Janaka’, for Janaka was the family name of the kings of Videha and various Janakas are distinguished in epic and Puranic tradition,³ but in brahmanic literature Janaka is regarded as one king.⁴ Similarly rishis of the same name were confused: thus the first Viśvāmitra is wrongly called Bharata-ṛṣabha in the story of Śunaḥśepa (p. 10); and this term really belonged to one of his descendants long afterwards, probably the Viśvāmitra who was priest to Sudās, i. e. Sudāsa, king of north Pañcāla, who was descended from Bharata.⁵ Two other brahmanical books⁶ confuse the two Viśvāmitras by reversing the blunder, in styling the descendant ‘Gāthi’s son’, who was the first Viśvāmitra. Again, the Rāmāyaṇa wrongly identifies the Viśvāmitra of Rāma’s time with the first Viśvāmitra,⁷ and naïvely makes Śatānanda narrate in ‘Viśvāmitra’s’ presence the fable of the first Viśvāmitra’s discomfiture by Vasiṣṭha.⁸ Similarly, the Vasiṣṭhas, of whom there were many, as will be shown in chapter XVIII, were often confused, until at length they were all regarded as one,⁹ who was cirajīvin: and so also all the Mārkaṇḍeyas were reckoned as only one,¹⁰ and the Bṛhaspatis are confused.¹¹

c10.30

¹ Vā 99, 26 f. Bḍ iii, 74, 24–32. Mat 48, 23 f. Hv 31, 1682–8. Br 13, 27–35.

c10.31

² Vā 99, 65, 66, 72, 97. Bḍ iii, 74, 66, 68, 74, 99. Mat 48, 58, 60, 89.

c10.32

³ See the notice of this dynasty in chap. VIII.

c10.33

⁴ See Vedic Index i, 271.

c10.34

⁵ See JRAS, 1917, p. 64; 1918, p. 236. Also chap. XXI.

c10.35

⁶ Bṛhadd iv, 112. Vedārth on Rigv iii, 53.

c10.36

⁷ Rām i, 18, 39–40; 51, 15. It is brahmanic.

c10.37

⁸ Rām i, 51, 12 f. See chap. XXI. The Viśvāmitras are confused in MBh xiii, 3.

c10.38

⁹ MBh i, 174, 6636–44, where several are confused.

c10.39

¹⁰ Pad v, 28, 22, 24. MBh iii, 25, 952–3. See chap. XVII.

c10.40

¹¹ Including descendants. See chap. XVI.

c10.41

An excellent instance of this kind of confusion is that of the two Sukas. One Suka had a daughter Kṛtvī or Kīrtti, who married Aṇuha king of South Pañcāla and was mother of king Brahmadatta.¹²

c10.42

¹² Mat 49, 56–7. Vā 99, 179–80. Hv 20, 1039–44 (calling her also Kīrttimatī), 1065–6; 23, 1241–2. Viṣ iv, 19, 12–13. Bhāg ix, 21, 25 (with confusion about Aṇuha). Gar i, 140, 13 partially.

c10.43

The other was Vyāsa's son,¹ far later. It will be shown in chapter XIII that Brahmadatta was a contemporary of the Kaurava king Pratīpa, and that his great great grandson Janamejaya was a contemporary of Pratīpa's great grandson Bhīṣma and of Pṛṣata (Drupada's father). Bhīṣma was of about the same age as Satyavatī, the maiden-mother of Vyāsa,² for he was a youth when his father Śantanu married young Satyavatī;³ hence Vyāsa was younger than Bhīṣma, and his son Śuka was therefore at least a generation later. From Brahmadatta's grandfather Śuka down to Vyāsa's son Śuka there were therefore some six generations. The kṣatriya genealogies and traditions keep the two Śukas distinct, but the brahmanical vaṃśas in their attempt to construct Vyāsa's family identify the two, give Vyāsa's son Śuka a daughter Kīrtimatī, say she was Aṇuha's queen and Brahmadatta's mother, and so make Brahmadatta great grandson of Vyāsa,⁴ thus misplacing Aṇuha and Brahmadatta from their true position to one some six generations later. Kṣatriya tradition is right, and the brahmanical lack of the historical sense produces the absurdity that Aṇuha or Brahmadatta would have been king of south Pañcāla at the time of the Bhārata battle when, as the Mahābhārata shows, Drupada was reigning there.

c10.44

¹ MBh i, 1, 103. Vā 73, 28-9 : &c. See chap. XVIII.

c10.45

² The whole MBh shows this.

c10.46

³ MBh i, 100, 4008-9, 4036-64.

c10.47

⁴ Bd iii, 8, 92-4. Vā 70, 84-6 (misreading Aṇuha as Aguha). Śrīdhara on Viṣ iv, 19, 12 says the same. Also Kūr i, 19, 25-7 partially. The vaṃśa in Mat 201, 30-32 does not introduce this mistake. Consequently Kṛtvī is sometimes called Kīrtimatī, e.g. Hv 20, 1044.

c10.48

Another instance may be cited from the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (xiii, 5, 4, 9 and 21). It says that Bharata seized the sacrificial horse of the Satvants, and adds that his descendants, the Bharatas, were greater than those of any other king. Here it has confused Bharata, the famous Paurava king, with apparently Bharata, the brother of Rāma of Ayodhyā. King Bharata was long prior to the Satvants or Sātvatas, as the synchronisms and the Table of royal genealogies show (chapters XII to XIV), but Rāma and Bharata of Ayodhyā were their contemporaries, and this story is no doubt connected with the conquest of the Śūrasena territory from the Sātvatas and its occupation by Rāma's brother Śatrughna, as will be noticed in chapter XIV. It would have been this Bharata who could have carried off the sacrificial horse, and it was the descendants of the Paurava Bharata, who were the famous Bharatas.

c10.49

Secondly, the brahmans confused kings, rishis and others with mythological persons of the same names, for names were common to both then as down even to modern times.¹ A few instances of such confusion may be noticed here. Bṛhaspati, the Āṅgirasa rishi, who lived just before Bharata’s time,² is confused with the divine priest Bṛhaspati.³ Madhu, the great Yādava king,⁴ from whom Kṛṣṇa obtained the patronymic Mādhava, is called a Daitya, a Dānava and an asura,⁵ being apparently confused with the demon Madhu whom Viṣṇu killed. Such cases of confusion led to the fabrication of brahmanical fables, and not a few other fables may be suspected to have arisen through similar misunderstanding.

c10.50

¹ e.g. Śaṅkara, Viṣṇu, Nīlakaṇṭha.

c10.51

² See the synchronisms in chap. XIII.

c10.52

³ See chaps. XVI and XIX.

c10.53

⁴ Hv 94, 5164.

c10.54

⁵ Hv 55, 3061; 94, 5143, 5157, 5168. Rām vii, 61, 3, 10, 15.

c10.55

Another instance is that of Tapatī, wife of the Paurava king Saṃvaraṇa. She was daughter of Sūra, Sūrya, or Tapana.⁶ These words are treated as meaning ‘the sun’,⁷ and a fable is told how Saṃvaraṇa’s priest, a Vasiṣṭha, went to the sun and obtained Tapatī for him.⁸ But those words were probably the name of a man, for other names of the sun were used as personal names, such as Prabhākara, Divākara and Bhānu. Sūrya appears to have been a real name, for the Sūryas are spoken of along with the Bhṛgus and Kaṇvas,⁹ and the patronymic Saurya is assigned to three rishis, the alleged authors of hymns x, 37, 158 and 170. But Tapatī’s father being confused with the sun, she became the sun’s daughter, and accordingly she is foisted into the myth of the sun and his wives as his daughter along with his sons Manu Vaivasvata, Yama and the Aśvins,¹⁰ confusing historical tradition with mythology and all with an utter disregard of chronological consistency.

c10.56

⁶ MBh i, 94, 3738; 171, 6530, 6535. Bhāg ix, 22, 4.

c10.57

⁷ MBh i, 171, 6521; 172, 6581–3.

c10.58

⁸ MBh i, 173, 6596–6610.

c10.59

⁹ Rigv viii, 3, 16. Cf. i, 117, 13; 118, 5. Sūrya was the name of a Dānava also, MBh i, 65, 2534–5.

c10.60

¹⁰ e.g. Mat 11, 9. Viṣ iii, 2, 4. Pad v, 8, 44, 74. Var 20, 8. Mat 11, 39 then identifies her with some river, probably the Tāpī (modern Tapti).

c10.61

Thirdly, the brahmans did not always distinguish between different periods, and so often misplaced persons chronologically and brought together as contemporaries persons who were widely separated in time. Such mistakes are innumerable, and only a few of the most glaring can be noticed here.

c10.62

The brahmanical Śānti-parvan says that Bhīṣma learnt dharma from Bhārgava Cyavana (who belonged to the very earliest age), from Vasiṣṭha and Mārkaṇḍeya (these are only gotra names), and from Rāma (that is, Jāmadagnya, who was long anterior).¹ Similarly, Droṇa is said to have visited Rāma Jāmadagnya.² The story of Utaṅka³ is a farrago of absurdities and chronological errors, plainly brahmanical. So the Bṛhaddevatā (iv, 112) and the Vedārthadīpikā on Rigveda iii, 53 make the first Viśvāmitra (son of Gāthi or Gādhi) contemporary with Śakti Vāsiṣṭha who was far later.⁴ This chronological ignorance produces at times the most absurd positions, as where persons are made to describe events long posterior to their time; thus king Dilīpa of Ayodhyā is instructed by his priest ‘Vasiṣṭha’ about Kaṃsa’s tyranny and Kṛṣṇa’s birth.⁵

c10.63

¹ MBh xii, 37, 1354–6. Cf. vi, 119, 5534: viii, 2, 37: xii, 46, 1570.

c10.64

² MBh i, 130, 5118–32. Karṇa also, viii, 34, 1613.

c10.65

³ MBh xiv, 53, 1542 to 58, 1750.

c10.66

⁴ See among the Vasiṣṭhas, chap. XVIII.

c10.67

⁵ Pad iii, 13, 8 f.

c10.68

Similarly lists are sometimes given of rishis as present at some gathering, although they belonged to widely different times and could not have been all alive together. The wildest instances of this are the lists of rishis who assembled at the twelve-year sacrifice in Naimiṣa forest;⁶ of those who visited Bhīṣma on his death-bed;⁷ and of those who attended when Yudhiṣṭhira was installed as king.⁸ Kings are sometimes jumbled together.⁹ There are many other instances.¹⁰ This lack of the historical sense must always be borne in mind when dealing with brahmanical statements in tradition; thus the order of the kings in Aitareya Brāhmaṇa vii, 5, 34 is wrong, being inverted for the most part.

c10.69

⁶ Pad vi, 219, 1–12.

c10.70

⁷ MBh xiii, 26, 1760–6.

c10.71

⁸ MBh ii, 4, 104–113.

c10.72

⁹ Pad ii, 64, 41–3.

c10.73

¹⁰ e. g. Pad i, 39, 111–14: v, 29, 13–19: vi, 82, 4–8. MBh iii, 26, 985–8: xii, 338, 12757–60. Rām vii, 1, 1–6: 19, 1–6. Hv 268, 14537–40. Vā 106, 33–40.

c10.74

Fourthly, the historical sense being lacking, the difference between reality and mythology became obliterated. So history was mythologized. The story of Tapatī discussed above illustrates this.

c10.75

Another instance is an account of Buddhism and Jainism.¹ There was war between the gods and asuras for a divine year, and the gods being worsted besought help of Viṣṇu. He produced Māyāmoha. This being went to the asuras and Daityas at the river Narbadā and beguiled them to forsake the Veda and their own dharma and to blaspheme the Veda, &c. They became Ārhatas. Then the gods renewed the battle and destroyed them. The terms Ārhata, &c., used show that Buddhism and Jainism ² are meant, and that river is made the place of their origin. The whole story is mythologized, the Buddhists and Jains become asuras and Daityas, and the struggle between brahmanism and them is turned into a war between gods and demons.³

c10.76

¹ Viṣ iii, 17, 8 to 18, 34. Similarly, Buddhism was for the perdition of the Daityas, Pad vi, 263, 69–70.

c10.77

² Buddha is called Jina-suta, Gar i, 1, 32.

c10.78

³ Rāma Jāmadagnya’s war with the Haihayas (chap. XXIV) seems to be the basis of his devāsura war in MBh viii, 34, 1584–1612, similarly.

c10.79

Another excellent instance of this is the development of ‘Aurva Agni’. There was a Bhārgava rishi named Urva. The traditional history about him and his descendants will be set out in chapter XVII, and here it is sufficient to state the salient points briefly. Urva’s son was Ṛcīka, his son was Jamadagni, and his son was Rāma; and a descendant was Agni in Sagara’s time. All these were therefore Aurvas. Jamadagni means ‘devouring fire’—Rāma according to the brahmanical fable destroyed all kṣatriyas off the earth twenty-one times—and Aurva might be treated as meaning ‘born from the thigh’ (ūru), and also ‘belonging to the earth’ (urvī). These names and ideas developed a fable which appears in two forms. According to the first form ⁴ the Bhārgavas were cruelly treated by the Haihayas, Aurva was born then from his mother’s thigh, blinding the Haihayas with his blaze; filled with wrath he determined to destroy the world, but cast the fire of his wrath into the sea, where it became the submarine fire. According to the second form,⁵ from Urva’s thigh was born Aurva Agni, a fuel-less fire, eager to burn up the world, but it was assigned to the submarine region, and this fire is the fire which will destroy the world at the dissolution ¹ and is identified with Viṣṇu.²

c10.80

⁴ MBh i, 178, 6815 to 180, 6863: very briefly in xiii, 56, 2905–9. The whole matter is discussed in JRAS, 1919, pp. 364 f.

c10.81

⁵ Mat 175, 23–62. Pad v, 38, 74–112. Hv 46, 2527–69.

c10.82

¹ Also Mat 2, 5. See ibid. 51, 29-30 : Vā 47, 76 : Bḍ ii, 18, 79-80, with which cf. Rigv viii, 102, 4 (samudra-vāsas).

c10.83

² Hv 41, 2149. Vā 97, 18. Bḍ iii, 72, 17. Cf. MBh iii, 189, 12961, 12966-7.

c10.84

Another instance is the curious Pitṛ-vaṃśa.³ The seven classes of Pitṛs had each one mind-born daughter (mānasī kanyā), namely, Menā, Acchodā (-Satyavatī), Pīvarī, Go, Yaśodā, Virajā and Narmadā. The account (subject to minor variations) stands thus. Menā was wife of Mount Himavant. They had a son Mount Maināka and three daughters, Aparṇā, Ekaparṇā and Ekapāṭalā. Aparṇā became the goddess Umā; Ekaparṇā married the rishi Asita and had a son the rishi Devala; and Ekapāṭalā married Sataśilāka's son, the rishi Jaigīṣavya, and had two sons, Saṅkha and Likhita. Acchodā, the river, transgressing against the Pitṛs, was born as a low-caste maiden (dāseyī) from king Vasu of Cedi and a fish who was the apsaras Adrikā; and she became (Kālī) Satyavatī, who was mother of Vyāsa by Parāśara, and of Vicitravīrya and Citrāṅgada ⁴ by king Śantanu. Pīvarī was wife of Vyāsa's son Śuka, and had five sons and a daughter Kīrtimatī who was Aṇuha's queen and Brahmadatta's mother.⁵ Go, called also Ekaśṛṅgā, married the great rishi Śukra and was ancestress of the Bhṛgus. Yaśodā was wife of Viśvamahat, daughter-in-law of Vṛddhaśarman, and mother of Dilīpa II Khaṭvāṅga.⁶ Virajā was wife of Nahuṣa and mother of Yayāti.⁷ Narmadā, the river, was wife of Purukutsa and mother of Trasadasyu.⁸

c10.85

³ Vā 72, 1-19; 73, 1-49. Bḍ iii, 10, 1-21, 52-98. Hv 18, 932-99. Br 34, 41-2, 81-93. Mat 13, 2-9; 14, 1 to 15, 28. Pad v, 9, 2-56. Also Vā 77, 32, 74-6. Bḍ iii, 13, 32, 76-9. Lg i, 6, 5-9; 70, 331; 82, 14-15: ii, 45, 88.

c10.86

⁴ Mat and Pad (loc. cit.) wrongly say they were kṣetraja sons. Vicitravīrya's sons, Dhṛtarāṣṭra and Pāṇḍu, were kṣetraja by Vyāsa.

c10.87

⁵ This statement is wrong, as shown above.

c10.88

⁶ Three kings of Ayodhyā, see Table of Genealogies in chap. XII. Viśvamahat = Viśvasaha, &c. Vṛddhaśarman = Viśvaśarman, Kṛtaśarman, &c.

c10.89

⁷ Two early kings of the Lunar race, see same Table.

c10.90

⁸ Two kings of Ayodhyā. The genealogies say Purukutsa's wife was Narmadā, without connecting her with the river, Vā 88, 74: Bḍ iii, 63, 73 (which has lost 3 lines): Br 7, 95-6: Hv 12, 714-5: Śiv vii, 60, 79: Kūr i, 20, 27-8: Gar i, 138, 24. Women in ancient times bore the same names as rivers, see chap. XI. So also Viṣ iv, 3, 6-12 and Bhāg ix, 7, 1–3, but imply her identity with the river. Mat 12, 36 (where for Vasudo read Trasado) and Ag 272, 25 wrongly make her wife of Trasadasyu. Pad v, 8, 140 goes further wrong, making her wife of (Trasadasyu’s son) Sambhūta. The identification of her with the river was a later fancy, as in MBh xv, 20, 549–50.

c10.91

Here genuine genealogy is mixed up with mythology, and the whole of this vamśa of the Pitṛ-kanyās arose out of a misunderstanding of this word. The genealogies say that Nahuṣa’s sons were born of pitṛ-kanyā Virajā,¹ connect a pitṛ-kanyā with Viśvamahat,² and call Kṛtvī a pitṛ-kanyā.³ There can be no doubt that the word meant ‘father’s daughter’, that is ‘sister’, for union between brother and sister was not unknown, as Rigveda x, 10 about Yama and Yamī shows. Nahuṣa and Viśvamahat married their sisters or half-sisters, and the same may be presumed of Purukutsa and probably of Śukra and Suka. But the brahmans misunderstood or perverted the word to mean ‘daughter of the Pitṛs’⁴ (and therefore ‘mind-born’), thus mythologizing it, and extended its use. Satyavatī, as a queen and great grandmother of the Pāṇḍavas, was ennobled by the kṣatriyas in the fable making her the offspring of Vasu, king of Cedi;⁵ and, as mother of the great Vyāsa, by the brahmans in the additional fable that she was a daughter of the Pitṛs.⁶ Menā was purely mythological, but Ekaparṇā and Ekapāṭalā⁷ were mistakenly conjoined with Aparṇā-Umā, probably through some similarity in names, much as in the case of Tapatī discussed above.

c10.92

¹ Vā 93, 12. Br 12, 1. Hv 30, 1599. Kūr i, 22, 5. Lg i, 66, 60–1.

c10.93

² In Vā 88, 181–2 (putrikasya) and Bd iii, 63, 181–2 (putrīkasyāṃ) read pitṛ-kanyā. Lg i, 66, 31, with Vṛddhaśarman.

c10.94

³ Hv 23, 1242–3.

c10.95

⁴ It is applied to Satyavatī in MBh xii, 351, 13688 as pitṛ-kanyakā, which is rendered in Pratap Ch. Ray’s translation, ‘a maiden residing in the house of her sire’.

c10.96

⁵ Told in MBh i, 63, 2371–99. Alluded to, Vā 1, 40–1.

c10.97

⁶ Alluded to, Vā 1, 176.

c10.98

⁷ They are also names of Umā, Vā 9, 86.

c10.99

The converse also occurred: mythology was not only freely brought into tales but was also turned into history. Thus Śiva and Pārvatī are introduced into the account of the long war between the Haihayas and the kings of Kāśī⁸ dealt with in chapter XIII; and Indra into the story of Vasiṣṭha, Viśvāmitra and Triśaṅku and that of Hariścandra and Rohita mentioned above.⁹ The aitihāsikas also, pushing their method to an extreme, declared that the Aśvins were two kings.¹

c10.100

⁸ Vā 92, 29–61. Bd iii, 67, 32–64. Hv 29, 1549–82.

c10.101

⁹ But Indra in both is probably a perverted misunderstanding of Devarāj (Vasiṣṭha), JRAS, 1913, p. 903: 1917, pp. 39, 54, 63.

c10.102

¹ Nirukta xii, 1.

c10.103

Fifthly, the brahmans freely misapplied historical or other tradition to new places and conditions to subserve religious ends. Thus they transferred the story of Hariścandra, Rohita and Śunaḥśepa ² and that of Purūravas ³ to the Godāvarī in order to enhance its glory in the Gautami-māhātmya. They connected Rāma with the R. Lauhitya (Brahmaputra),⁴ and Urvaśī with that river ⁵ and also Mt. Malaya.⁶

c10.104

² Br 104.

c10.105

³ Br 101 : 108; and 175, 64 (?).

c10.106

⁴ MBh iii, 85, 8144.

c10.107

⁵ Ibid. xiii, 25, 1732.

c10.108

⁶ Ibid. xii, 334, 12597.

c10.109

Sixthly, the brahmans took some person or incident from historical tradition and freely fabricated edifying religious tales thereon, such as those of kings Hariścandra,⁷ Śūrasena ⁸ and Jayadhvaja.⁹

c10.110

⁷ Mārk 7 to 8.

c10.111

⁸ Br 111.

c10.112

⁹ Kūr i, 22, 21-80.

c10.113

Each of these classes of tradition may now be considered more in detail.

c10.114

Kṣatriya tradition comprises genealogies, tales, notices and allusions. The genealogies will be dealt with fully in chapters VII to IX. The tales are of two kinds—those that appear to be historical and those that manifestly are merely laudatory. The former are generally told simply and naturally without excessive exaggeration, and have the appearance of being ancient and genuine, for it is very improbable that they could have been the work of Puranic brahmans, so that they must have belonged to the ancient kṣatriya traditions preserved by the sūtas. They are most trustworthy when narrated simply. The best occur in the genealogies, such as the Puranic stories of Satyavrata-Triśaṅku and Sagara, mentioned above; and others that occur elsewhere are those of Duṣyanta and Śakuntalā,¹⁰ Saṃvaraṇa and Vasiṣṭha,¹¹ Bhīṣma and Ugrāyudha.¹² They are open to doubt the more they are elaborated and amplified, the most striking example being the detailed account of the early kings of the Vaiśālī dynasty in the Mārkaṇḍeya,¹³ wherein occur many anachronisms such as the introduction of Agastya in the earliest times (115, 16).

c10.115

¹⁰ MBh i, 69, 2816 to 71, 2913; 73, 2955 to 74, 3110.

c10.116

¹¹ MBh i, 173, 6617-30.

c10.117

¹² Hv 20, 1085-1110.

c10.118

¹³ Chapters 113-136 and 109-110.

c10.119

The laudatory tales are not generally of historical value, for they are often exaggerated, sometimes absurd or impossible, and frequently violate chronology, such as Rāma Dāśarathi’s alleged fight with Rāma Jāmadagnya¹ and that of Bhīṣma with the same,² for Rāma Jāmadagnya lived long before them : but sometimes such tales are expressed in less extravagant terms, such as the praise of Arjuna Kārtavīrya³ and Māndhātṛ,⁴ though even these are highly coloured.

c10.120

¹ MBh iii, 99, 8658–82. Rām i, 74, 17 to 76, 24. Pad vi, 269, 154–179.

c10.121

² MBh v, 178, 7049 to 187, 7336. Alluded to, i, 67, 2711–2: v, 146, 4980; 167, 5840: vii, 3, 113: xii, 27, 806.

c10.122

³ Vā 94, 20 f. Bd iii, 69, 21 f. Mat 43, 24 f. : &c.

c10.123

⁴ Vā 88, 67–9. Bd iii, 63, 68–70. MBh vii, 62 : xii, 29, 974–85.

c10.124

All tales however narrated in the genealogies are not kṣatriya tradition, and some are patently brahmanical, such as those of the rishi Saubhari and Māndhātṛ’s fifty daughters,⁵ of king Vasumanas,⁶ and of king Jayadhvaja and his brothers.⁷ The first is a pure brahmanic marvel, the second conveys a brahmanic discourse, and the third extols Viṣṇu’s supremacy. The contrast between these and true kṣatriya tradition is striking and unmistakable, and such stories inserted in the genealogies are generally found only in the later Puranas.

c10.125

⁵ Viṣ iv, 2, 19 to 3, 3. Bhāg ix, 6, 38–55. Bṛhadd vi, 50–7. Pad vi, 232, 16, 33–82. Gar i, 138, 23.

c10.126

⁶ Kūr i, 20, 31–76.

c10.127

⁷ Kūr i, 22, 21–80.

c10.128

Notices and allusions occur in the genealogies and elsewhere, and are most trustworthy when introduced naturally, appropriately and simply, such as the mention of Gaurī and her son king Māndhātṛ in the Paurava genealogy,⁸ that of Datta Ātreya in connexion with Arjuna Kārtavīrya,⁹ and of king Kṛta as disciple of Hiraṇyanābha Kausalya.¹⁰ The Brahmāṇḍa, Vāyu, Brahma, Harivaṃśa and Matsya have the best and most valuable allusions of this kind; others have few, and some have none, such as the Garuḍa and Agni, because they are merely late and concise compilations. Where notices and allusions occur in tales or discourses, their value depends greatly on their context, and they are *per se* the less trustworthy, the more their context is brahmanical, because the brahmans lacked the historical sense: thus, for instance in the brahmanical version of the story of Śunaḥśepa the appellation Bharata-ṛṣabha given to Viśvāmitra is entirely wrong as mentioned above; and so also the introduction of Agastya into a story about king Nahuṣa,¹ for the Agastyas did not exist then.

c10.129

⁸ Bd iii, 63, 66–8. Vā 88, 64–7. See chap. VI.

c10.130

⁹ Vā 94, 10. Bd iii, 69, 10. Mat 43, 15 : &c.

c10.131

¹⁰ Mat 49, 75–6. Hv 20, 1081–2. Vā 99, 190–1.

c10.132

¹ MBh v, 16, 521. For the Agastyas, see chap. XXII.

c10.133

Taking next brahmanical tradition and considering those tales only that profess to have a historical basis, three groups may be distinguished:—(1) those that extol rishis and brahmans, (2) those that advocate or describe the merits of tīrthas, and (3) those that commend religious doctrines, rites and observances. Such tales too often indulge in marvels or impossibilities, and it is not always easy to divide the quasi-historical tales from fables that are mythological, for the former have a tendency to treat their subject-matter in a mythological way or to introduce mythology. With this qualification some instances of the three groups may be given.

c10.134

In the first group may be mentioned the story of the rishi Saubhari’s marrying the fifty daughters of Māndhātṛ, king of Ayodhyā,² that of Jamadagni’s death and Rāma’s killing the kṣatriyas off the earth twenty-one times,³ and the extraordinary tale of Gālava and Yayāti’s daughter,⁴ to which was fabricated a sequel about Yayāti and his daughter’s sons,⁵ which is wholly fabulous. Some of such tales appear to have been developed out of incidental statements. Thus the story of Saubhari seems to have grown out of the statement in Rigveda viii, 19, 36, that Trasadasyu Paurukutsya gave Sobhari fifty maidens. That king was different from Trasadasyu Paurukutsa, grandson of Māndhātṛ, the Kākutstha, king of Ayodhyā, as will be shown in chapter XI, but the two Trasadasyus were confused, so that the Bṛhaddevatā says the maidens were Kākutstha maidens and thus implies that the Trasadasyu of the hymn was the Ayodhyā king, and adds that Sobhari obtained magnificent boons from Indra. The Viṣṇu improved thereon by definitely making the maidens Māndhātṛ's daughters, by describing those boons as in real existence and by adding many fanciful incidents. The Bhāgavata copied from the Viṣṇu.

c10.135

² See seventh note above.

c10.136

³ MBh iii, 116, 11089 to 117, 10210 (there is a mistake in the numbering). No kṣatriya could have put such a story about, manifestly untrue and so discreditable to his class.

c10.137

⁴ MBh v, 113 f.

c10.138

⁵ MBh i, 88, 3569 to 93, 3690. Mat 35 to 42. Cf. MBh iii, 197, 13301-2.

c10.139

Tales about tīrthas (the second group) generally introduce the marvellous or mythology, and it is rare to find any that are rational. So also tales that commend doctrines, rites and observances (the third group) are much the same in their character. Yet a few may be discovered that are rather of an ordinary kind, such as, among the former class, the story of Āpastamba-tīrtha,¹ and that of Bhānu-tīrtha where however the collocation of Madhucchandas with Śaryāti is absurd;² and among the latter class, the story of king Suvrata³ and that of some of Kṛṣṇa's wives who were ravished by bandits after his death.⁴

c10.140

¹ Br 130.

c10.141

² Br 138.

c10.142

³ Pad vi, 238, 6 f.

c10.143

⁴ Mat 70, 11 f. Pad v, 23, 74 f. : vi, 279, 86, 93. MBh xvi, 7, 222 f. But other statements seemingly differ, Lg i, 69, 88-90.

c10.144

Brahmanic tales generally are untrustworthy for traditional history, because of the lack of the historical sense; yet sometimes they introduce allusions of an historical kind incidentally, as well as geographical particulars and notices of other matters, and these are useful and sometimes even valuable; but the historical allusions can hardly be trusted of themselves, and should not be relied on unless they are corroborated from elsewhere. The Rāmāyaṇa is highly brahmanical and its stories fanciful and often absurd.

c10.145

Next comes the intermediate class of stories that show both kṣatriya and brahmanical traits and sentiments combined. These are plainly composite. Since the kṣatriya features are older than the brahmanic as pointed out above, such stories must have been of kṣatriya origin and have been touched up afterwards by the Puranic brahmans. The reverse is not credible from what has been explained about the development of the Puranas. These stories display all grades of modification from tales that are mainly kṣatriya to tales that have become essentially brahmanic. Generally it is possible to trace out the modification only when different versions of the same story exist; but in most cases, while it is fairly evident that modification has taken place, it can only be conjectured what the changes have been.

c10.146

Kṣatriya stories were often tampered with to subserve brahmanical interests, and different stages of this can be detected. Preliminary tampering is found in the Vāyu version of the story of Satyavrata Triśaṅku;¹ further tampering in the Vāyu account of king Janamejaya III’s contest with the brahmans;² and still more in the story of king Mitrasaha Kalmāṣapāda, as the various versions show.³ Where different versions do not exist, we can yet perceive that there has been tampering, as in the story of Agastya and Lopāmudrā.⁴ The furthest development occurs where the brahmans took some incident in kṣatriya tradition and enlarged it, till their story loses all resemblance to a kṣatriya tale and becomes a brahmanical fable, as in the above story of Aurva.

c10.147

¹ Vā 88, 78 f.: JRAS, 1913, pp. 889, 894, note ¹, 895, note ¹.

c10.148

² Vā 99, 250–5 compared with Mat 50, 57–64.

c10.149

³ See chap. XVIII.

c10.150

⁴ MBh iii, 96, 8553 to 99, 8644.

c10.151

It is mainly the brahmanical mistakes and absurdities that have discredited the Puranas. If, however, we put them aside and consider statements and stories that are evidently of kṣatriya origin and have not been over-tampered with by the brahmans, it is remarkable what an amount of consistency they reveal, though unconnected and drawn from different contexts.

c10.152

The fourth class of stories is connected with names and comprises two kinds, first, statements or anecdotes that provide explanations of names, and secondly, statements or anecdotes that have grown from misunderstanding or misapplication of names.

c10.153

Of the first kind, some appear to be ancient and may be genuine, such as the explanation of Pañcāla from pañca alam, which began as a jocose nickname, the ‘Five capables’, given to the five sons of king Bhṛmyaśva in consequence of a jocular boast of his;⁵ of the nickname Nandanodaradundubhi of a Yādava king;⁶ and possibly of the name Triśaṅku.⁷ But most of such stories have been coined out of the names themselves, sometimes fanciful, sometimes mistaken, and sometimes absurd. Some no doubt arose from popular etymology, but many were certainly the invention of Puranic brahmans. Some may be fairly old, though silly, as that Ikṣvāku was so named because Manu sneezed,⁸ and that Śaśāda got his name because he ate a hare.¹ But many, if not most, are obviously late fabrications, being sometimes fashioned with grotesque ingenuity, such as those explaining the names Māndhātṛ,² Videha,³ Jarāsandha,⁴ Gāndinī⁵ and Bharadvāja.⁶ These are quite on a par with similar explanations in brahmanical books, such as those of Atri,⁷ Ayāsya and Aṅgiras,⁸ and yūpa.⁹

c10.154

⁵ Vā 99, 197–8. Mat 50, 4. Hv 32, 1779–80. Br 13, 95–6. Viṣ iv, 19, 15. Bhāg ix, 21, 32–3. JRAS, 1910, p. 48: 1914, p. 284: 1918, p. 238.

c10.155

⁶ Mat 44, 63. Corrupted, Vā 96, 117: Bd iii, 71, 118: Viṣ iv, 14, 4: Lg i, 69, 34: Ag 274, 29. Kūr i, 24, 49–54 explains it.

c10.156

⁷ Vā 88, 109. Bd iii, 63, 108. Br 7, 19. Hv 13, 749. Lg i, 66, 7.

c10.157

⁸ Vā 88, 9. Br 7, 44. Viṣ iv, 2, 3: &c.

c10.158

¹ Br 7, 50. Vā 88, 12–24. Viṣ iv, 2, 6: &c. ² MBh iii, 126, 10452–3: xii, 29, 976–7. ³ Briefly Vā 89, 4: Bḍ iii, 64, 4. Differently, Mat 61, 32–3. Otherwise Viṣ iv, 5, 1–5. ⁴ Vā 99, 226. Mat 50, 31–2. Amplified, MBh ii, 17, 739. ⁵ Vā 96, 105–8. Bḍ iii, 71, 106–9. Br 16, 51. Hv 39, 2082. ⁶ Vā 99, 140–50. Mat 49, 17–25. Viṣ iv, 19, 5–7. ⁷ Bṛhad Āraṇyaka Upaniṣad ii, 2, 4. ⁸ Ibid. i, 3, 8 and 19. Bloomfield, Atharvaveda, p. 107. ⁹ Aitar. Brāhm. ii, 1, 1. ¹⁰ Vā 99, 115–6. Mat 50, 20–1. MBh ix, 54, 3009 f. ¹¹ MBh i, 94, 3739: iii, 129, 10535. Defined, ix, 54. Noticed, ix, 39, 2211–3. ¹² MBh i, 126, 4901–6: ii, 19, 793: v, 152, 5191, 5195: cf. v, 53, 2127. Rām ii, 68, 13 (the two lines should be inverted) where Kurujāṅgala is used by an anachronism. Kurukṣetra is also used sometimes by anticipation. ¹³ This was a real name. Cf. Halāyudha, Lāṅgaladhvaja, MBh v, 3, 44. ¹⁴ Rām i, 66, 13–14: ii, 118, 28–9. Vā 89, 15–17. Bḍ iii, 64, 15–18. Pad vi, 269, 99–103. ¹⁵ Rām i, 66, 15. Br 154, 12, 24. Viṣ iv, 4, 42. ¹⁶ Vā 94, 11, 15, &c. Mat 43, 14, 16, &c. Hv 33, 1851–3. MBh xiii, 152, 7187, but he had ordinarily only two at home, ibid. 7191. ¹⁷ Mat 68, 10. Ag 4, 14. This was a name, so also Sahasrapad, see Sörensen's Index.

c10.159

Of the second kind appear to be the following. Kurukṣetra was so named because king Kuru ploughed it,¹⁰ whereas it really denoted that it was his cultivated territory,¹¹ east of which lay his tract (apparently less cultivated) called Kurujāṅgala.¹² Sītā received her name, because her father Sīradhvaja¹³ found her in a furrow (sītā),¹⁴ whereas it was a natural feminine name expressing the idea of human propagation found in kṣetra, kṣetraja and bīja (cf. Ahalya); and the mistake led on to the epithet ayonijā given her.¹⁵ Arjuna Kārtavīrya had a thousand arms (bāhu-sahasra),¹⁶ whereas it seems probable he had the name Sahasrabāhu.¹⁷

c10.160

It is clear therefore that the kṣatriya tales found in the Puranas, especially those that are genuinely kṣatriya, belonged to the ancient body of tradition prior to the composition of the Purana. This is a very important conclusion. The Puranic brahmans took over the kṣatriya traditions; some they preserved without modification; but others they re-shaped more or less according to brahmanic ideas, and these form a considerable portion of the intermediate or combined class mentioned above. Different stages of that process are discernible, as has been noticed.

Linked texts (28)