Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c10.s3: Name and Etymology

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c10.s3

Language
English

Name and Etymology

c10.s3.1

Like the word Licchavi, the words Videha and Mithilā inspired a few etymological interpretations by earlier commentators and writers. Modern writers have either reproduced them and accepted them without comment or criticism or have not touched on the point at all. The word Videha, which is applied to the country, has an obvious connection with Videgha Māthava of the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*.⁴ The authors of the *Vedic Index* comment that, "Videgha is the name of a man, Māthava, in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*. It is legitimate to assume that it is a name given to him as king of the Videghas or the later Videhas".⁵ From this the word will apply to the people of Videha or the Videhans⁶ and to their king. There are quite a few examples of kings being called Videha of Vedeha.⁷ However, in the *Māta-Posaka Jātaka* "Vedeha" is also given as the personal name of the king of Kāsī.⁸ But in most cases it is the title of the kings of Mithilā, the capital of Videha,¹ e.g. Suruci,² Sādhina,³ Somanassa,⁴ Nimi,⁵ and Aṅgati.⁶ Thus it seems that Videha was the name of the people who colonized the region east of Sadānīrā, with their centre at Mithilā, and their rulers were entitled "Videha" or "Vedeha," meaning king or chief of the Videhas.

c10.s3.2

⁴ *Śat. Br.*, i, 4, 1, 10ff.

c10.s3.3

⁵ *Vedic Index*, ii, p. 298.

c10.s3.4

⁶ *Loc. cit.*

c10.s3.5

⁷ *Ibid.*, pp. 298-9.

c10.s3.6

⁸ *Jāt.*, iv, p. 94.

c10.s3.7

¹ *DPPN*, ii, pp. 922-3.

c10.s3.8

² *Jāt.*, iv, p. 319.

c10.s3.9

³ *Ibid.*, pp. 355-6.

c10.s3.10

⁴ *Ibid.*, vi, p. 47.

c10.s3.11

⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 102.

c10.s3.12

⁶ *Ibid.*, p. 222.

c10.s3.13

As we have noted before, the Videhas occur quite frequently in the Sanskrit and Pāli texts, after their first mention in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*.⁷ But there are only three etymologies suggested by the ancient writers and none of them is satisfactory. In the *Taittirīya Saṃhitā* the word occurs in the sense of "cows of Videha" and the commentator takes the adjective *Vaidehī* to mean simply "having a splendid body" (*viśiṣṭa-deha-sambandhinī*).⁸ In this context the word would not refer to a place or rather "the point of a place name in this expression is not very obvious."⁹ Buddhaghosa, commenting on the name *Vedehikā*, says that "she was called Vedehikā either because she came from a Videhan family or because she was wise."¹⁰ But Vedeha in the sense of wise seems to be very unusual.¹¹ Buddhaghosa explains Ajātasattu's favourite epithet *Vedehiputto*, by saying that *Vedehī* here means "a wise woman" and not "the Videhan lady."¹² He is convinced of this because elsewhere it is stated that Ajātasattu's mother was the daughter not of a king of Videha, but of a Kosalan king,¹³ and was called Kosalādevi.¹⁴ This interpretation reveals the arduous attempt of the commentator to establish consistency in the Pāli tradition.

c10.s3.14

⁷ *Cf.* above, pp. 137ff.

c10.s3.15

⁸ *Tait. Saṃ.*, ii, 1, 4, 5.

c10.s3.16

⁹ *Vedic Index*, ii, p. 298.

c10.s3.17

¹⁰ *Sum. Vil.*, i, p. 318.

c10.s3.18

¹¹ See below, p. 142.

c10.s3.19

¹² *Sum. Vil.*, p. 139; *Pap. Sūd.*, i, p. 120.

c10.s3.20

¹³ *Jāt.*, ii, p. 403; iii, p. 121; iv, p. 342; also see above, pp. 123ff.

c10.s3.21

¹⁴ *Ibid.*, ii, p. 403; cf. *DPPN*, ii, p. 923.

c10.s3.22

Buddhaghosa seems to close his eyes to the fact that this almost inseparable epithet of Ajātasattu occurs in most of the books of the Pāli Canon, and like so many similar cognomens is obviously a metronymic. This is undoubtedly an older tradition and more reliable than the later *Jātaka* tradition making his mother a Kosalan princess. It may well be that his father, Bimbisāra, had a Kosalan princess for one of his queens,¹ but we object to the commentator's conclusion that Ajātasattu was born of the Kosalan princess. The older tradition, found both in the early Jaina and Buddhist texts,² shows that Ajātasattu's mother was a Videhan lady or a Licchavian princess. Samudra Gupta is always referred to as *Licchavidauhitra* from the fact that his mother was a Licchavi princess. *Gautamīputra* is another similar name taken by Sātakarṇi from his mother's *gotra* name. We assume that the commentator Buddhaghosa himself invented the meaning "wise" to explain away the difficulty, just as he did in deriving the name Licchavi from *Līna-chavī*, "thin skin" or "no skin."³ Mayrhofer firmly rejects the possibility of the word being derived from *vid*, to know. He states that *deha* in the sense of a wall or rampart, is found not only in Vedic Sanskrit but also in all the cognate languages, Avestan, Persian, etc.⁴ Thus, no faith can be put in Buddhaghosa's ingenious interpretation. The word is probably connected with *deha*, neaning a "wall" or "rampart around the city."

c10.s3.23

¹ *Jāt.*, ii, pp. 403ff.

c10.s3.24

² *Cp. Cīvaravastu*, p. 13; *cf.* above, pp. 140ff.

c10.s3.25

³ *Cf.* above, pp. 85ff.

c10.s3.26

⁴ *Cf.* Mayrhofer *Ety. Skt. Dic.*, *s.v.* *deha*.

c10.s3.27

The *Viṣṇu Purāṇa*⁵ gives yet another explanation. Vasiṣṭha was annoyed with king Nimi who had engaged the former's antagonist, Gautama, to officiate in his sacrifice. The enraged Vasiṣṭha cursed the king to be *vi-deha*, "bodiless," or "deceased." This is also the etymology of the word given by Macdonell,⁶ Monier Williams,⁷ and Apte.⁸ Modern Sanskritists seem to have relied more on the Purāṇic tradition than is necessary.

c10.s3.28

⁵ *Viṣṇu Purāṇa*, iv, 5, 8; see also *Purāṇa Index*, iii, p. 229; Law, *KCBI*, p. 142.

c10.s3.29

⁶ *Skt.-Eng. Dic.*, *s.v.* *videha*.

c10.s3.30

⁷ *Skt.-Eng. Dic.*, *s.v.* *videha*.

c10.s3.31

⁸ *Skt.-Eng. Dic.*, *s.v.* *videha*.

c10.s3.32

These interpretations "having a splendid body," "wise," and "bodiless" are evidently all popular etymologies connected with *deha*, "body" or *vid*, "to know," and can hardly be the correct derivation of the term. The first is an adjective and, as we have seen, does not precisely apply to a place name.⁹ The connection of the word with "wisdom" is also as dubious as with "body." In fact Videha is probably just a prakritism for Videgha, as we suggest Licchavi is for *Ṛkṣavin*. The connection with knowledge might have arisen as a "popular etymology" after Janaka's encouragement of Upaniṣadic wisdom, but it is certainly not correct. The *Purāṇa* writer took the word at its face value, a negative compound *vi* ("without") *deha* ("body"), and in order to justify his ignorance he invented or refurbished the story of Vasiṣṭha's cursing Nimi. No trust can be placed in the story of the Purohita's curse or the king being named in this way. It too stands with Buddhaghosa's derivation of the word Licchavi.

c10.s3.33

⁹ Above, p. 139 fn. 10.

c10.s3.34

The word Videha was thus the title of the king and probably also the name of his people. The word may be connected with *deha* which in the *Ṛg Veda* means "primarily a wall or rampart around the city,"¹ and for which we may assume an earlier form *degha*. Thus our Videhas are connected with walls or ramparts. The prefix *vi* could be taken in the privative sense,² meaning a "people without walls or ramparts" or "destroyers of walls and ramparts." The people whom Videgha Māthava led to the east of the river Sadānīrā were certainly the invaders of a foreign land and may well have been reputed for destroying the walls and ramparts of the people whom they attacked. The "destroyer of cities" is a popular epithet of Indra in the *Ṛg Veda*. The prefix *vi* may also be taken to emphasize the fact that they had walls or ramparts around their own cities. This is less likely however. Few such names, if any, begin with the prefix *vi*, though there are common adjectives, *e.g.*, *vibhāga*, *virāma*, *vijaya*, *vinaya*, etc.³

c10.s3.35

¹ *Cf.* Mayrhofer, *Ety. Skt. Dic.*, *s.v.* *deha*.

c10.s3.36

² *Cf.* Monier Williams, *Skt.-Eng. Dic.*, *s.v.* *vi*. It occurs in this sense in the *ṚV*.

c10.s3.37

³ In each case *vi* emphasizes the sense. I am indebted to my Sanskrit tutor, Mr. J. E. B. Gray for this interpretation and etymology.

c10.s3.38

There is a late Purāṇic tradition about Mithilā, the capital of the Videhans. The *Viṣṇu Purāṇa*⁴ informs us that it was founded by king Nimi's son, Mithi or Mithila, who was churned from the dead body (*Videha*) of Nimi after he had been cursed by Vasiṣṭha. The existence of a prince Mithila is attested by other sources also.⁵ This story suggests that the city was founded and named after the region had been colonized by the followers of Videgha Māthava. The city was named after one of his descendants, Mithila. The city was also called Janakapura from the fact that king Janaka ruled there.¹ However, Dr. Subhadra Jha suggests another interpretation. "It is not unreasonable to think," he says, "that Mithilā has some connection with Sanskrit Mitha-together".² He takes this to include "Vaiśāli, Videha and Aṅga," but this does not explain the name. Mithilā is never used in the sense of a confederation of these peoples.

c10.s3.39

⁴ *Viṣṇu Purāṇa*, iv, 5, 8ff.; *cf.* B. C. Law, *KCBI*, p. 142; *SKTAI*, pp. 131ff.

c10.s3.40

⁵ *Viṣṇu Purāṇa*, iv, 5, 8ff.; Vālmīki, *Rāmāyaṇa*, Bāla Kāṇḍa, 71, 4ff; Kālidāsa, *Raghuvaṁśa*, xi, 32ff.

c10.s3.41

¹ Vālmīkī, *loc. cit.*

c10.s3.42

² Y. Mishra, *IHQ*, xxxv, pt. 2, 1959, p. 161.

c10.s3.43

It is clear from the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*, that the river Sadānīrā formed the western boundary of Videha and separated it from Kosala, but there is no absolute certainty about the identification of the river.³ However, most scholars now believe that it was the Gaṇḍak.⁴ The same text⁵ gives us other boundaries, the Kauśiki (Kosi) to the east, the Ganges to the south and the Himālayas to the north.⁶ This boundary seems only an approximation and it seems to refer to what was the Videhan kingdom before the establishment of the republic. During or just before the lifetime of the Buddha it ceased to be a kingdom and became a part of the Vajjian Confederacy.⁷ As we have seen, it was the territory of the republican Licchavis which lay along the northern bank of the Ganges, while the Videhan republic lay further north, along the foothills of the Himālayas or what is now the Nepalese Terāi. The eastern and western boundaries of the Videhan territory were probably the same even during its republican period. But the Kosalan kingdom no longer bordered on its west and the Mallas appear to have occupied the tract along the Sadānīrā.⁸

c10.s3.44

³ *Sat. Br.*, i, 4, 1, 10ff.; *Mbh.*, Bhīṣma Parva, 10, 23-4.

c10.s3.45

⁴ *CAGIM*, p. 718; *Vedic Index*, ii, p. 299; Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, pp. 26, 37; Oldenberg, *Buddha*, pp. 398-9; *DPPN*, ii, p. 880; Law, *SKTAI*, p. 131; Pandey, *op. cit.*, p. 135; *CHI*, i, pp. 122, 309, etc.

c10.s3.46

⁵ *Sat. Br.*, i, 4, 1; cf. *CAGIM*, p. 718; *DPPN*, ii, p. 880; Pandey, *op. cit.*, pp. 262ff.

c10.s3.47

⁶ *Bṛhad Viṣṇu Purāṇa* gives the same boundaries and adds that it extended 24 *yojanas* eastwest and 16 *yojanas* north-south. *Cf.* V. Mishra, *op. cit.* pp. 151ff.

c10.s3.48

⁷ *Cf.* above, pp. 81ff.

c10.s3.49

⁸ *Cf.* Cunningham's map xi, pp. 444-5 (in *CAGIM*); Basham, *Ājīvikas*, map at the end of the book.

c10.s3.50

Mithilā was the capital of Videha,¹ and it was there that Janaka ruled and Yājñavalkya disputed on the concepts of *Ātman* and *Brahman*. The size of Mithilā is frequently given as seven leagues, or about 50 miles in circumference.² Some historians maintain that Mithilā was the name of both the country and the capital,³ but the evidence for this view is very late. We believe that Mithilā applied only to the capital and Videha to the whole country.⁴ The use of the appellation Mithilā for the whole country is attested only in mediaeval times, and it was used along with Tirabhukti, or Tirhut, until the last century. Grierson made the name Mithilā famous again by naming the vernacular language of the region Maithili.

c10.s3.51

¹ *Dīgha*, ii, p. 235; *Mahāvastu*, iii, pp. 208-9; *Jāt.*, iii, p. 365; iv, p. 315; vi, p. 246; cf. *CHI*, i, p. 173; Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, p. 37.

c10.s3.52

² *Dīgha*, ii, p. 235; *Jāt.*, iii, p. 365; iv, p. 315; vi, pp. 246, etc.; cf. Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, p. 37; *CHI*, i, pp. 160, 173, etc.

c10.s3.53

³ *CAGIM*, p. 718; Pandey, *op. cit.*, pp. 262-3.

c10.s3.54

⁴ Cf. Monier Williams, *op. cit.*, *s.v.* Videha.

c10.s3.55

The older Videha covered almost the same region as did later Tirabhukti or modern Tirhut,⁵ and Mithilā has been identified with Janakpur, a small town within the Nepal border, north of which the Muzaffarpur and Darbhangā districts meet.⁶ The Videhan territory comprised the areas today indicated by north Bihar, the Terāi and the south-eastern portion of the kingdom of Nepal inclusive of the lower ranges of hills.⁷ According to M.S. Pandey, the joint territory of the Videhas and the Licchavis did not extend over 1,500 to 1,800 miles in circuit.⁸ We accept this location of the Videhan territory during its republican career, as proposed by scholars, with the qualification that it must be regarded only as a probable approximation not disproved by conflicting evidence.

c10.s3.56

⁵ *CAGIM* p. 718; Pandey, *op. cit.*, pp. 135ff; Y. Mishra, *op. cit.*, pp. 151ff.

c10.s3.57

⁶ *Loc. cit.*

c10.s3.58

⁷ Y. Mishra, *op. cit.*, p. 151; also *Pāli-Eng. Dic.*, (PTS), pp. 156-7.

c10.s3.59

⁸ *Op. cit.*, p. 136; Rao, *op. cit.*, p. 269; also see our map A.

c10.s3.60

*The Videhas and the Licchavis*

c10.s3.61

In the treatment of scholars, the Videhans have been overshadowed by the Licchavis.⁹ The one major exception is B.C. Law. In his first book he gives a summary account of the Videhas, mainly dealing with the monarchical period.¹⁰ In his next book, Law records only one important fact about the Videhas, that they were a member of the Vajjian Confederacy.¹ In his final book the legends about the Videhas are reviewed rather uncritically.² On the whole, Law’s account gives much valuable information about the earlier period of Videhan history, but his account contains little about political institutions, for which evidence is virtually lacking. Moreover, it seems that Law was not very interested in the republican period of this important people.

c10.s3.62

⁹ Majumdar, *Corporate Life*, p. 324, only mentions them once. For others see proceeding pages.

c10.s3.63

¹⁰ *KCBI*, pp. 141-61.

c10.s3.64

¹ *SKTAI*, pp. 131-49.

c10.s3.65

² *TAI*, pp. 235-42.

c10.s3.66

Undoubtedly the Videhas were a young republic at the time of the Buddha, but they formed an important part of the Vajjian Confederacy and merit better treatment. That they were as important and powerful as the Licchavis³ is of course doubtful. However, the fact cannot be dismissed that they were one of the most important constituent members of the League and were probably most similar to the Licchavis in their political institutions. A recent work states that in the 6th century B.C., after the League was established, “the fate of both these regions [Videha and Vesālī] was joined together and their history is almost the same”.⁴ It is difficult to follow this line of argument because in this case too much emphasis has been placed on the Confederacy. The League was probably nothing more than a temporary device,⁵ and the Videhans must have retained their freedom at least in internal affairs and especially in their capital of Mithilā. Not only may there have been a constitutional change in Videha, from monarchy to republic, but there may also have been a considerable change because of the arrival of the Licchavis.

c10.s3.67

³ Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, p. 26.; *cp.* below, p. 157.

c10.s3.68

⁴ Pandey, *op. cit.*, p. 138.

c10.s3.69

⁵ Altekar, *State and Goverment*, pp. 136ff.

c10.s3.70

Bhandarkar mentions the Videhas only once, as a member of the Vajjian Confederacy.⁶ Similarly, Majumdar refers to them once,⁷ and treats only of the Licchavian institutions in detail, perhaps implying that the same applied to the Videhans. Jayaswal also mentions them occasionally,⁸ and interprets Kauṭilya’s *Vṛjika* as referring to the Videhas alone.⁹ Altekar also mentions them several times and regards them, along with the Sakyas, the Mallas and the Licchavis, as comparatively larger republics than the Bhaggas, the Bulis, the Koliyas and the Moriyas.¹ Then he comments merely that “the confederation of the Licchavis and the Videhas had executive body of 18”.² We know that the Videhas were a large republic but there is no direct evidence to support the statement that the Licchavis and the Videhas had such a joint executive body. The Jaina sources indicate 18 (or 36) as being the number of the council of the Vajjian confederacy.³ It seems that Altekar mistakenly applies this figure to the Licchavi-Videha Confederation, as he gives no source to support his claim. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that the Licchavis and the Videhas formed a political alliance apart from their common membership of the Vajjian Confederacy.⁴ H. C. Raychaudhuri also makes mention of the Videhas and comments: “As in Rome, so in Videha, the overthrow of the monarchy was followed by the rise of a republic—the Vajjian Confederacy.”⁵ Here again, the emphasis is on the Confederacy. The fact, of their changing from monarchy to republic however, was pointed out for the first time by Rhys Davids, the earliest champion of the republics which flourished at the time of the Buddha.⁶

c10.s3.71

⁶ *Car. Lecs.*, p. 156.

c10.s3.72

⁷ *Corporate Life*, p. 324.

c10.s3.73

⁸ *Ibid.*, p. 49.

c10.s3.74

⁹ *Hindu Polity*, pp. 34 fn., 40-50, 229.

c10.s3.75

¹ *State and Government*, pp. 121ff.

c10.s3.76

² *Ibid.*, p. 132.

c10.s3.77

³ *Cf.* above, pp. 81ff.

c10.s3.78

⁴ See above, pp. 81ff, for other members of the Confederacy.

c10.s3.79

⁵ *PHAI*, pp. 83-4.

c10.s3.80

⁶ *Buddhist India*, p. 26.

c10.s3.81

It is reported in the Pāli commentary, *Paramattha-Jotikā*, that the Licchavis, who succeeded Janaka’s dynasty as the strongest political power in north Bihar, were the offspring of a queen of Kāsi.⁷ This passage indicates the great influence the Licchavis exercised on the Videhas during the republican period and, as we have seen earlier, points towards a later belief that the royal family of Kāsi had close relations with the Videhas and the Licchavis of Vesāli.⁸

c10.s3.82

⁷ *Par. Jot.*, pp. 158-85; also *cf.* above, pp. 85ff.

c10.s3.83

⁸ *Cf. PHAI*, p. 84.

Linked texts (12)