The Social and Military Position of the Ruling Caste in Ancient India, as Represented by the Sanskrit Epic c2.s5.53

c2.s5.53

∗ And not by the darkness of later formal codes on war. The materials for Hindu antiquities must, it seems to me, first be drawn exclusively from the classical or older literature, and not from the late didactic works until the Epic has declared itself. Such modern explanatory books as the ‘Politys’ form, on account of the difference in age and the wholly theoretical character of the contents, rather an obscuration than an elucidation of the facts we seek. They are instructive only as illustrating the Epic, and help us when they confirm the data drawn from real literature; but when they contradict such data, they are to be ignored—unless one seeks to form a continuous chain from the Epic period to the latest age, and to do so will arrange the didactic material after that drawn from the Epic. But to confound and mix the two, to quote a Niti on military matters as if entitled to like consideration with the Epic, is to allow a succeeding age to interpret a former, and ignore a possible development bridging the two. Thus, besides the simple Epic sprinkling of the king at the consecration, the universal ‘sprinkling’ of all the king’s arms, the nīrājanāvidhi (Ag. P. 267 ff.), the raising of the daṇḍa, so elaborately described with the triumphal arch and lustration in Bṛh. Saṃh., chap. 43-45, have no meaning for the Epic period, interesting as they are for that of the Harivaṃśa and following epochs. Thus also it is from no wish to exclude outside aid that I here put aside the technical divisions of the Nītisāra of Kāmandaki and of the Nītiprakāśa; but a glance will show the Epic student what false guides these are. Everything is here on a modern footing. The older order has been not only increased but changed. The formal divisions of arms, arrays, employments do not accord with the more ancient records. I regard such works (including the Agni Purāṇa) as useful solely for giving us light on a later period; and, while thinking an interesting parallel to the Epic to be worth noting, do not consider the statements of such literature, when more detailed, as explanatory of the Epic; nor, when opposed, as authoritative. The four great divisions of the Niti’s vyūhas have no parallel in the Epic; and e. g. the śyena as a subdivision of the daṇḍa is misleading; nor are the names of the divisions, daṇḍa, bhaga, asaṃhata, maṇḍala (Nītiprak. vi. 3 ff.), known as such to the Epic; while the relegation of the varāha, makara, gāruḍa, krāuñca, padma to an extra class not contained under any head by Epic tradition. Details, like those on the size of the daṇḍa (Ag. P. 61. 35 ff.), do not necessarily oppose the Epic, but may be quoted only as modern specifications. So, too, of the Bṛhat Saṃhitā. My objections to this class of literature I explain rather fully, since it might well be asked what need, in the light of Wilson’s work and the texts published by later editors, we have of another investigation on military matters, especially on arms, etc. It is sufficient to say that, if we follow even Wilson’s results, who has based his researches on the imitative Purāṇas, we obtain many statements contradicted by the usage of the Epic. It is the latter that is most important. Still greater discrepancies occur in comparing the formal war-codes with our poem. In each case the codes reflect a later period, although they have of course inherited much that is old and common with the didactic parts of the older work.