History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c8.20

v1.c8.20

And the first thing we have to remark is that Brahmins yet formed one caste without subdivision throughout India; the modern distinctions based on territorial divisions had not yet come into existence. The distinctions now known as Pancha Drāvidas and Pancha Gaudas had not arisen; not to speak of the many still minor sub-castes, into which Brahmins are at present further subdivided. The only distinction then known, appears to be that of Sākhā or Charana i. e. school of Vedic ritual or recitation. The gotra was also always mentioned, and the pravara sometimes. In fact in this matter modern Brahmins are diametrically different from the Brahmins of the days of Bāṇa. The modern Brahmins scarcely know what their gotra is and to what Vedic Sūtra they belong though they can tell at once whether they are Kanojia or Sanādhya, Maratha or Dravida. But the Brahmin of the seventh century A.D. always distinguished himself by his gotra and Sutra. In the Harsha Charita Bāṇa does not tell us whether he was a Kanojia or Magadha Brahmin but simply says that he was of the Vātsyāyana gotra. In all inscriptions and copperplate grants of that period we find nowhere Brahmins distinguished as Gauda or Dravida, but as belonging to a particular gotra and studying a perticular Sūtra. It is unnecessary to quote any instances here for the fact is so patent. Any grant or inscription referred to at random will show this. We must, however, refer to one grant because its words have been misunderstood. The Bulandshahar Gazetteer mentions the copper-plate grant found at Indore near Anupshahar as important in that "in it there is reference to the Gauda division of Brahmins." As the grant is dated in 164 G. E. or 465 A. D. it would follow that this division of Brahmins goes back to the 5th century A. D. or 150 years before the time of Bāṇa. But it seems the word गौरान्वय-संभूत in this grant has been misunderstood by the Gazetteer. For it must be remembered that the divisions Gauda, Dravida etc., are not based on family distinctions but on territorial or provincial distinctions and hence the word गौरान्वय-संभूत can have no reference to the distinctions now known as Gauda, Dravida and so on. Then again the word is Gorā and not Gauda. Of course the family name of Brahmins or what is now called the surname is rarely given in ancient epigraphic records, and this mention of the family is somewhat strange. But that there is no reference here to the provincial divisions of Brahmins is beyond question and we may believe that upto the end of the seventh century A. D. such distinctions had not arisen. Brahmins formed one caste throughout India and knew no distinctions except that of gotra and Charana or Śākhā. It is difficult to know if marriages took place then between Brahmins of different countries. But there is no reason why they should not have. Smritis do not prohibit such marriages. Even the present restriction of marriage within the same Śākhā is more a matter of custom than of Śāstric provision. For as a matter of fact marriages between Rigvedis and Yajurvedis do take place even at present among Maratha Brahmins, Kanojiyas and other subcastes. The mention of the Śākhā, therefore, in early epigraphic records does not import any divisions for prohibition of marriage. The Veda and Śākhā were perhaps important as indicating fitness for performing particular worship or religious service. The Atharvavedi Brahmins were, for instance, considered fit to perform the worship of the sun. It may be noted en passant that the words then used to indicate the Veda or Śākhā of a Brahmin were in some respects different from those now used. Bahvrieha was usually used then instead of Rigvedi and Chandoga instead of Sāmavedi; Yajurvedi being indicated by Vājasaneyi &c. And it may further be noted that Bhāradvāja-gotra was the usual expression then instead of Bharadvaja-gotra now used.