The History of Indian Literature c9.24

Language: English

c9.24.1

It has long been customary to place the Epic Poetry at the head of Sanskrit literature; and to this custom we here conform, although its existing monuments cannot justly pretend to pass as more ancient than, for example, Pāṇini’s grammar, or the law-book which bears the name of Manu. We have to divide the epic poetry into two distinct groups: the *Itihāsa-Purāṇas* and the *Kāvyas*. We have already more than once met with the name Itihāsa-Purāṇa in the later Brāhmaṇas, namely, in the second part of the Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa, in the Taittirīya-Āraṇyaka, and in the Chhāndogyopanishad. We have seen that the commentators uniformly understand these expressions to apply to the legendary passages in the Brāhmaṇas themselves, and not to separate works; and also that, from a passage in the thirteenth book of the Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa, it results with tolerable certainty that distinct works of this description cannot then have existed, inasmuch as the division into *parvans*, which is usual in the extant writings of this class, is there expressly attributed to other works, and is not employed in reference to these Itihāsa-Purāṇas themselves.

c9.24.2

On the other hand, in the Sarpa-vidyā (‘serpent-knowledge’) and the Devajana-vidyá (‘genealogies of the gods')—to which, in the passage in question, the distribution into *parvans*, that is to say, existence in a distinct form, is expressly assigned—we have in all probability to recognise mythological accounts, which from their nature might very well be regarded as precursors of the epic. We have likewise already specified as forerunners of the epic poetry, those myths and legends which are found interspersed throughout the Bráhmaṇas, here and there, too, in rhythmic form,∗ or which lived on elsewhere in the tradition regarding the origin of the songs of the Ṛik. Indeed, a few short prose legends of this sort have been actually preserved here and there in the epic itself. The Gáthás also—stanzas in the Bráhmaṇas, extolling individual deeds of prowess—have already been cited in the like connection: they were sung to the accompaniment of the lute, and were composed in honour either of the prince of the day or of the pious kings of old (see *I. St.*, i. 187). As regards the extant epic—the *Mahá-Bhárata*—specially, we have already pointed out the mention in the Taittiríya-Áraṇyaka, of Vyása Páráśarya¹⁹⁹ and Vaiśampáyana,²⁰⁰ who are given in the poem itself as its original authors; and we have also remarked (p.

c9.24.3

143) that the family of the Paráśaras is represented with especial frequency in the *vanśas* of the White Yajus.[^asterisk] We also find repeated allusions in the Bráhmaṇas to a Naimishíya sacrifice, and, on the authority of the Mahá-Bhárata itself, it was at such a sacrifice that the *second* recitation of the epic took place in presence of a Śaunaka. But, as has likewise been remarked above [pp. 34, 45], these two sacrifices must be kept distinct, and indeed there is no mention in the Bráhmaṇas of a Śaunaka as participating in the former. Nay, several such sacrifices may have taken place in the Naimisha forest [see p. 34]; or it is possible even that the statement as to the recitation in question may have no more foundation than the desire to give a peculiar consecration to the work. For it is utterly absurd to suppose that Vyása Páráśarya and Vaiśampáyana—teachers mentioned for the first time in the Taittiríya-Áraṇyaka—could have been anterior to the sacrifice referred to in the Bráhmaṇas. The mention of the “Bhárata” and of the “Mahá-Bhárata” itself in the Gṛihya-Sútras of Áśvaláyana [and Śáṅkháyana] we have characterised [p. 58] as an interpolation or else an indication that these Sútras are of very late date. In Páṇini the word “Mahá-Bhárata” does indeed occur; not, however, as denoting the epic of this name, but as an appellative to designate any individual of special distinction among the Bháratas, like Mahá-Jábála,-Hailihila (see *I. St.*, ii. 73).

c9.24.4

Still, we do find names mentioned in Páṇini which belong specially to the story of the Mahá-Bhárata—namely, Yudhishṭhira, Hástinapura, Vásudeva, Arjuna,dagger Andhaka-Vṛishṇayas, Droṇa (?); so that the legend must in any case have been current in his day, possibly even in a poetical shape; however surprising it may be that the name Páṇḍu[^double-dagger] is never mentioned by him. The earliest direct