The History of Indian Literature c8.132

Language: English

c8.132.1

However widely they may differ as to details, the contents of the two works are essentially identical, especially as regards the order and distribution of the matter. They treat mainly, as I have already stated (p. 17), of the ceremonies to be performed in the various stages of conjugal and family life, before and after a birth, at marriage, at the time of and after a death. Besides these, however, manners 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 high antiquity, and frequently carry us back into the time when Brahmanism had not yet been developed” (see Stenzler in *I. St.*, ii. 159). It is principally popular and superstitious notions that are found in them; thus, we are pointed to star-worship, to astrology, portents, and witchcraft, and more especially to the adoration and propitiation of the evil powers in nature, the averting of their malign influence, &c. It is especially in the *piṭritarpaṇa*, or oblation to the Manes, that we find a decisive proof of the modern 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 Parsís), yet in this particular application belongs to a very recent period, as is apparent from the names themselves.

c8.132.2

For not only are the Ṛishis of the Ṛik-Saṃhitá cited in their extant order, but all those names are likewise mentioned which we encounter as particularly significant in the formation of the different schools of the Ṛik, as well as in connection with its Bráhmaṇas and Sútras; for example, Váshkala, Śákalya, Máṇḍúkeya, Aitareya, Paiṅgya, Kaushítaka, Śaunaka, Áśvaláyana, and Śáṅkháyana themselves, &c. Joined to these, we find other names with which we are not yet otherwise acquainted, as also the names of three female sages, one of whom, Gárgí Váchaknaví, meets us repeatedly in the Vṛihad-Áraṇyaka of the White Yajus, as residing at the court of Janaka. The second⁴⁵ is unknown; but the name of the third, Sulabhá Maitreyí, is both connected with this very Janaka in the legends of the Mahá-Bhárata,∗ and also points us to the *Saulabháni Bráhmaṇáni*, quoted by the scholiast on Páṇini, iv. 3. 105, probably on the authority of the Mahábháshya,⁴⁶ as an instance of the 'modern' Bráhmaṇas implied by this rule. Immediately after the Ṛishis of the Ṛik-Saṃhitá, we find mention of other names and works which have not yet been met with in any other part of Vedic literature. In the Śáṅkháyana-Gṛihya we have these: *Sumantu-Jaimini-Vaiśampáyana-Paila-sútra-bháshya* [-*Gárgya-Babhru*] . . .;

c8.132.3

and in the Áśvaláyana-Gṛihya these: *Sumantu-Jaimini-Vaiśampáyana-Paila-sútra-bhárata-mahábhárata-dharmácháryáḥ*.⁴⁷ The latter passage is evidently the more modern, and although we must not suppose that the Mahá-Bhárata in its present form is here referred to, still, in the expression "*Vaiśampáyano mahábháratácháryaḥ*," apparently indicated by this passage, there must at all events be implied a work of some compass, treating of the same legend, and therefore 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-Bhárata 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 literature in its different schools belong to the same period. Of a Sútra by Sumantu, and a Dharma by Paila, we have no knowledge whatever. It is only in more modern times, in the Puráṇas and in the legal literature proper, that I find a work attributed to Sumantu, namely, a Smṛiti-Śástra; while to Paila (whose name appears from Páṇ. iv. 1. 118) is ascribed the revelation of the Ṛigveda—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 Áśvaláyana;

c8.132.4

and in my opinion it would be preferable to do so. We may divest the four proper names of any special relation to the names of the four works, and regard the two groups as independent,⁴⁸ as we must evidently assume them to be in the Śáṅkháyana-Gṛihya.* If this be done, then what most readily suggests itself in connection with the passage is the manner in which the Puráṇas apportion the revelation of the several Vedas; inasmuch as they assign the Atharvaveda to Sumantu, the Sámaveda to Jaimini, the Yajurveda to Vaiśampáyana, and the Ṛigveda to Paila. But in either case we must assume with Roth, who first pointed out the passage in Áśvaláyana (*op. c.*, p. 27), that this passage, as well as the one in Śáṅkháyana, has been touched up by later interpolation;⁴⁹ otherwise the dates of these two Gṛihya-Sútras would be brought down too far! For although, from the whole tenor of both passages, that in the Áśvaláyana-Gṛihya, as well as that in the Śáṅkháyana-Gṛihya—which for the rest present other material discrepancies of detail—it is sufficiently clear that they presuppose the literature of the Ṛigveda as entirely closed, still the general attitude of both works shows their comparatively ancient origin.—The question whether any connection exists between the Smṛiti-Śástra of Śaṅkha and the Gṛihya-Sútra of Śáṅkháyana, remains still unanswered.