The Social and Military Position of the Ruling Caste in Ancient India, as Represented by the Sanskrit Epic c2.s5.752

c2.s5.752

Weber’s position on this point is not quite clear. In his Literature, pp. 200–201, he seems to consider the legends the chief factor, and the Gāthās as secondary. In Indian Antiquary, ii. 58, he says that the Mahābhārata has ‘grown out from the songs of the minstrels at the courts of the petty rājas.’ Lassen, laying bare all as additions to the legends, counts the tales as the real origin, simply pointing out three kinds: the first, simple tales (Ādi, condensed Bhārata); next, tales of instruction (Çānti); last, the long legends (Vana). The difference between the Bhārata and Great Bhārata—expressed in the romantic tone of the latter, which brings it near to the prevailing spirit of the Rāmāyaṇa—has been clearly pointed out by Schroeder.* Müller, in Ancient Sanskrit Literature, pp. 36, 37, 40, will not ‘deny that a mass of popular songs celebrating the power and exploits of gods and heroes existed at a very early period in India,’ but says we must seek them in the Veda, not in the Epic. He shows immediately, however, that ‘Epic poetry, traditional as well as improvised on the spur of the moment,’ existed during the Vedic age, and that the Vedic traditions were not forgotten in after time, when the priests ‘began to collect all the remains of Epic songs into one large body called the Mahābhārata.’ That Epic legend existed long before the recognized Epic period has of late been shown by Bradke and Oldenberg. From the investigations of these scholars it would appear that the ‘prosaic-poetic’ legend is of Vedic antiquity. But the ‘poetic’ element is purely lyric.† I cannot allow that the recitative form was older, or was the exclusive source of the poem. The Epic is itself significant of its partial origin from lays. The cloudiness reigning in the battle-scenes between the acts of special heroes, and the catch-word phrases that always link these separate scenes together, seem to show that they have been united by a later clumsy hand: not perhaps the scenes as we have them in their present fullness, but the different exploits subsequently developed into those scenes. Take any of the battle-books, and open at random. We find a succession of duels and single feats, ending always in the same way: ‘then it was terrible,’ ‘then there arose a great tumult,’ ‘then he seized another bow,’ ‘then everyone shot at everyone,’ ‘then there was an indistinguishable fight.’‡ We sail through a general indistinct warfare described in stock phrases, and soon come again on a duel, where individuals and separate deeds of heroism are plainly given. Each of these encounters is and was a unit, composed by a ‘hero-praiser.’ How early the ‘hero-praisers’ recite their old tales may be seen by Çat. Br. xiv. 5. 4.