Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The History of Indian Literature c7: Lectures

The History of Indian Literature c7

Language
English

Lectures

c7.1

ON THE HISTORY OF INDIAN LITERATURE.

c7.2

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, including 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-Aryan speech. Nor, lastly, can I say that they are to present a history of "Sanskṛit Literature;" for the Indo-Aryan language is not in its first period "Sanskṛit," *i.e.*, the language of the educated, but is still a popular dialect; while in its second period the people spoke not Sanskṛit, but Prákṛitic dialects, which arose simultaneously with Sanskṛit 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 Literature."

c7.3

I shall frequently in the course of these lectures be forced to draw upon your forbearance. The subject they discuss may be compared to a yet uncultivated tract of country, of which only a few spots have here and there been cleared, while the greater part of it remains covered with dense forest, impenetrable to the eye, and obstructing the prospect. A clearance is indeed now by degrees being made, but slowly, more especially because in addition to the natural obstacles which impede investigation, there still prevails a dense mist of prejudice and preconceived opinions hovering over the land, and enfolding it as with a veil.

c7.4

The literature of India passes generally for the most ancient literature of which we possess written records, and justly so.¹ 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 place, Indian tradition itself has been adduced in support of this fact, and for a very long time this was considered sufficient. It is, I think, needless for me to waste words upon the futile nature of such evidence. In the next place, astronomical data have been appealed to, according to which the Vedas would date from about 1400 B.C. But these data are given in writings, which are evidently of very modern origin, and they might consequently be the result of calculations² instituted for the express purpose. Further, one of the Buddhist eras has been relied upon, according to which a reformer is supposed to have arisen in the sixth century b.c., in opposition to the Brahmanical hierarchy; but the authenticity of this particular era is still extremely questionable. Lastly, the period when Páṇini, the first systematic grammarian, flourished, has been referred to the fourth century b.c., and from this, as a starting-point, conclusions as to the period of literary development which preceded him have been deduced. But the arguments in favour of Páṇini's having lived at that time³ are altogether weak and hypothetical, and in no case can they furnish us with any sort of solid basis.

c7.5

¹ In so far as this claim may not now be disputed by the Egyptian monumental records and papyrus rolls, or even by the Assyrian literature which has but recently been brought to light.

c7.6

² Besides, these calculations are of a very vague character, and do not yield any such definite date as that given above, but only some epoch lying between 1820–860 B.C., see *I. St.*, x. 236; Whitney in *Journ. R. A. S.*, i. 317, ff. (1864). True, the circumstance that the oldest records begin the series of *nakshatras* with the sign *Kṛittiká*, 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 η Tauri (*Kṛittiká*), in round numbers, about the year 2300 B.C., see *I. 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 *Kṛittiká*, with them into India, or else have obtained it at a later period through the commercial relations of the Phœnicians with the Panjáb, 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 den Nakshatra* (Berlin, 1862), pp. 362–400; my paper, *Ueber den Veda-kalender Namens Jyotisha* (1862), p. 15; *I. St.*, x. 429. ix. 241, ff.; Whitney, *Oriental and Linguistic Studies* (1874), ii. 418.—Indeed a direct reference to Babylon and its sea trade, in which the exportation of peacocks is mentioned, has lately come to light in an Indian text, the Báverujátaka, see Minayeff in the *Mélanges Asiatiques* (Imperial Russian Academy), vi. 577, ff. (1871), and *Monatsberichte* of the Berlin 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 commercial relations between India and the West has recently been found in hieroglyphic texts of the seventeenth century, at which time the Áryas would appear to have been already settled on the Indus. For the word *kapi*, ‘ape,’ which occurs in 1 Kings x. 22, in the form *qōf*, Gr. κῆπος, is found in these Egyptian texts in the form *kafu*, see Joh. Dümichen, *Die Flotte einer egypt. Königin aus dem 17. Jahrh.* (Leipzig, 1868), table ii. p. 17. Lastly, *tukhiím*, the Hebrew name for peacocks (1 Kings x. 22, 2 Chron. ix. 21) necessarily implies that already in Solomon's time the Phœnician ophir-merchants “ont eu affaire soit au pays même des Abhîra soit sur un autre point de la côte de l'Inde avec des peuplades dravidiennes,” Julien Vinson, *Revue de Linguistique*, vi. 120, ff. (1873). See also Burnell, *Elements of South Indian Palæography*, p. 5 (Mangalore, 1874).

c7.7

³ Or even, as Goldstücker supposes, earlier than Buddha.

c7.8

The reasons, however, by which we are fully justified in regarding the literature of India as the most ancient literature of which written records on an extensive scale have been handed down to us, are these:—

c7.9

In the more ancient parts of the Ṛigveda-Saṃhitá, we find the Indian race settled on the north-western borders of India, in the Panjáb, and even beyond the Panjáb, on the Kubhá, or Κωφήν, in Kabul.⁴ The gradual spread of the race from these seats towards the east, beyond the Sarasvatí and over Hindustán 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 conflicts among the conquerors of Hindustán themselves, as, for instance, the Mahá-Bhárata; or of the farther spread of Brahmanism towards the south, as, for instance, the Rámáyaṇa. If we connect with this the first fairly accurate information about India which we have from a Greek source, viz., from Megasthenes,∗ it becomes clear that at the time of this writer the Brahmanising of Hindustán was already completed, while at the time of the Periplus (see Lassen, *I. AK.*, ii. 150, n.; *I. St.*, ii. 192) the very southernmost point of the Dekhan had already become a seat of the worship of the wife of Śiva. 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 footing. 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 Panjáb 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 objects of a cordial hatred on the part of their kinsmen, who had wandered farther on, and on this account also Buddhism gained an easy entrance among them.

c7.10

⁴ One of the Vedic Ṛishis, asserted to be Vatsa, of the family of Kaṇva, extols, Ṛik, viii. 6. 46–48, the splendid presents, consisting of horses, cattle, and *ushṭras* yoked four together—(Roth in the St. Petersburg Dict. explains *ushṭra* as ‘buffalo, humped bull;’ generally it means ‘camel’)—which, to the glory of the Yádvas, he received whilst residing with Tirimdira and Parśu. Or have we here only a single person, Tirịmdira Parśu? In the Śáṅkháyana Śrauta-Sútra, xvi. 11. 20, at least, he is understood as Tiriṃdira Páraśavya. These names suggest Tiridates and the Persians; see *I. St.*, iv. 379, *n.*, but compare Girard de Rialle, *Revue de Linguist.*, iv. 227 (1872). Of course, we must not think of the Persians after Cyrus: that would bring us too far down. But the Persians were so called, and had their own princes, even before the time of Cyrus. Or ought we rather, as suggested by Olshausen in the *Berliner Monatsberichte* (1874), p. 708, to think of the Parthavas, *i.e.*, Parthians, who as well as Párśas are mentioned in the time of the Achæmenidæ? The derivation, hitherto current, of the word Tiri in Tiridates, &c., from the Pahlaví *tír* = Zend *tistrya* (given, *e.g.*, by M. Bréal, *De Persicis nominibus* (1863), pp. 9, 10), is hardly justified.

c7.11

∗ Who as ambassador of Seleucus resided for some time at the court of Chandragupta. His reports are preserved to us chiefly in the Ἰνδικά of Arrian, who lived in the second century a.d.

c7.12

And while the claims of the written records of Indian literature to a high antiquity—its beginnings may perhaps be traced back even to the time when the Indo-Aryans still dwelt together with the Persa-Aryans—are thus indisputably proved by external, geographical testimony, 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. Beginning with this nature-worship, which everywhere recognises only the individual phenomena of nature, and these in the first instance as superhuman, we trace in Indian literature the progress of the Hindú people through almost all the phases of religious development through which the human mind generally has passed. The individual phenomena of nature, which at first impress the imagination as being superhuman, are gradually classified within their different spheres; and a certain unity is discovered among them. Thus we arrive at a number of divine beings, each 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 ethical 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 conception of the deities themselves, entirely borrowed from the contemplation of nature. We have the gods who act in the heavens, in the air, upon the earth; and of these the sun, the wind, and fire are recognised as the main representatives and rulers respectively. These three gradually obtain precedence over all the other gods, who are only looked upon as their creatures and servants. Strengthened by these classifications, speculation presses on and seeks to establish the relative position of these three deities, and to arrive at unity for the supreme Being. This is accomplished either speculatively, by actually assuming such a supreme and purely absolute Being, viz., "Brahman" (neut.), to whom these three in their turn stand in the relation of creatures, of servants only; or arbitrarily, according as one or other of the three is worshipped as 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 Bráhmaṇas also—to which rather than to the Saṃhitás the Avesta is related in respect of age and contents—we find the sun-god here and there exalted far above the other deities (*prasavitá devánám*). We also find ample traces of this in the forms of worship, which so often preserve relics of antiquity.⁵ Nay, as "Brahman" (masc.), he has in theory retained this position, down even to the latest times, although in a very colourless manner. His colleagues, the air and fire gods, in consequence of their much more direct and sensible influence, by degrees obtained 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 Hindustán,∗ and which at the time of the Periplus had penetrated, though in a form already very corrupt, as far as the southernmost point of the Dekhan.

c7.13

⁵ Cf. my paper, *Zwei vedische Texte über Omina und Portenta* (1859), pp. 392–393.

c7.14

∗ According to Strabo, p. 117, Διόνυσος (Rudra, Soma, Śiva) was worshipped in the mountains, Ἡρακλῆς (Indra, Vishṇu) in the plain.

c7.15

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 Hindú religion,⁶ the case is sufficiently unsatisfactory, when we come to look for definite chronological 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, furnish 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.

c7.16

⁶ To these, thirdly, we have to add evidence derived from the language. 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 lapse of a series of centuries.

c7.17

Indian literature divides 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.

Linked texts (10)