The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c9.s2.1

c9.s2.1

The epic style which the Bṛihaddevatā follows seems to have acquired vogue during the period which saw the composition of the Sūtras which are so entirely different in spirit and form. The Āśvalāyana Grihya Sūtra itself refers to Gāthās, heroic tales and ancient legends, and mentions a Mahābhārata, as well as a Bhārata.² The Śāmbavya Sūtra mentions the Mahābhārata itself. The historical germ of the great Epic can be traced to the 10th century B.C.³ The sources of the literary epic lie in the traditional recitations of bards who probably were neither priests nor scholars.⁴ They were however recast and extensively added to for centuries. The chronological scheme proposed by Hopkins is the most acceptable of all that have been propounded. “We may tentatively assume as approximate dates of the whole work in its different stages. Bhārata (Kuru) lays, perhaps combined into one, but with no evidence of an epic before 400 B.C. A Mahābhārata tale with Pāṇḍu heroes, lays and legends combined by the Puranic diaskeuasts, Kṛiṣṇa as a demi-god (no evidence of didactic form or of Kṛiṣṇa’s divine supremacy), 400--200 B.C. Remaking of the epic with Kṛiṣṇa as all-god, intrusion of masses of didactic matter, addition of Puranic material old and new; multiplication of exploits, 200 B.C. to 100--200 A.D. The later books added with the introduction to the first book, the swollen Anuśāsana separated from Śānti and recognised as a separate book, 200 to 400 A.D.; and finally 400 A. D. +: occasional amplifications.”¹ The didactic chapters, though added very late, are not necessarily so late in origin. Probably they were composed by the second century B.C. That there was more than one version of the Epic tale is evident from one of the Buddhist Jātakas where the names of the Pāṇḍu brothers are given in a different order and the few incidents related are different from those in the great Sanskrit work.² But the theory of Holtzmann and von Schroeder that the poem was originally composed in honour of the Kurus and that it was later re-written to favour the Pāṇḍus is exploded. Nor does the hypothesis of Lassen, largely adopted by Weber, that the Epic originally related a war between Kurus and Pañcālas find support at present.