The History of Indian Literature c9.20.2

c9.20.2

The reason of this 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 became superfluous, and was consequently put aside, no longer committed to memory, no longer copied. In all these branches therefore—unless some other influence has supervened—we are in possession only of those master-works in which each attained its culminating 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 Brâhmaṇa 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 Śákhás, we find the best analogy for another kindred point, namely, that some of the principal works of this period are extant in several—generally two—recensions. But along with this a further circumstance has to be noted, which, in consequence of the great care expended upon the sacred literature, has comparatively slight application 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 most part hopeless.