The Social and Military Position of the Ruling Caste in Ancient India, as Represented by the Sanskrit Epic c2.s5.441

c2.s5.441

‡ In iii. 23. 3; vii. 90. 25, etc., we find the *jyā māurvī*. Compare viii. 21. 23, *māurvyā talatre nyahanat*. The *jyāçata* of viii. 90. 98 speaks in fact against a plurality of strings (general verses on the use of the bow-string, *jyāvadhāna*, etc., ib. 99-100). Arjuna’s bow has one string noosed at each end, *jyāpāça* (compared with the two *upadhāna*), iv. 35. 16. When one bow-string breaks, another has to be tied on, iv. 59. 9: *yojayāmāsa navayā māurvyā gāṇḍīvam*. Compare iii. 168. 76, *ajarām . . *jyām . . *gāṇḍīve samayojayat*. The *mūrva* string constantly used in the Epic is partly replaced by a string of hemp and hide in the later Agni-Purāṇa; and here metal as well as horn and wood (or ‘iron and horn mixed’) is employed in the making of bows (which are further, according to this authority, four cubits in length); but the bamboo is most extolled. This passage, Ag. P. 244. 4 ff. (quoted without reference by Wilson and R. Mitra), might there have been contrasted with the Epic usage distinctly earlier (compare *dhanūṅṣi çarāṅç ca dīptān māurvīç ca* in iii. 23. 3, etc.) Some technicalities may be mentioned here. Drawing the bow is *vikṛṣya*, *utsṛjya*, *ānamya*, *vidhunvan*, *visphārayan*; the shooting of the arrow is *visṛjan*, or a compound of *as* or of *sic*, ‘casting’ or ‘emission;’ *cyu* is also used in the same way. Of the bow-string we find *vikarṣan*, ‘stretching;’ *avasṛjya*, ‘letting go;’ in case of a knight ready to shoot, *avamrjya*, ‘fingering the bow-string,’ is used. *Sajya*, *sajja* are used of the bow, but as well of the arrow. Compare for As to the decorations of the bow, it is generally described first as being ‘pure,’ that is spotless, and then as ‘of gold’ or ‘golden-backed:’ by which we may understand some kind of gilding or gold ornamentation; and this is probably meant when ‘gold bows’ are spoken of by later works, although among metallic arms. Not only was the bow painted many colors (i. 225. 8, 9), but it was ornamented with all sorts of gold figures, ‘drops of gold,’ insects, elephants, etc., distributed (*vibhaktaḥ*) upon its surface; representations also of the heavenly bodies are to be found upon it; and even gems of value were set in the wood.* The range of the bow (*bāṇagocara*; *dhanu-antara* is a technical measurement)† is not described as very great, but the force of the shot is represented as terrific. It is difficult to say whether the many stories of heroes slaying elephants and horses with an arrow apiece, overturning chariots, and transfixing armed knights, are all due to poetic exaggeration, or may be based upon relatively good shooting power. Reading as from the point of view of the later writers’ knowledge, we should not be inclined to acknowledge any great dexterity in the use of the weapon. The knights are portrayed as wonderful in the strength and rapidity of their shots; but their shooting except for this is rather ineffectual. Their aim was apparently less good than their quickness in reshooting, although a few cases of good shots are mentioned, and the practice of amusing one’s self by shooting into the foe’s open wounds is largely indulged in by the heroes, and argues well for their skill. But had they really had any great expertness, they would not have wasted so many arrows before killing each other, in the single duels; for, in