Vedic Index of Names and Subjects v1.c2: Preface

Vedic Index of Names and Subjects v1.c2

Language: English

Preface

v1.c2.1

Inception and Progress of the Book.—The origination of the present work was due to Professor T. W. Rhys Davids at the time when, several years ago, he was appointed general editor of the Indian Text Series to be published under the auspices of the Secretary of State for India. He then asked me to contribute a work supplying the historical material, as represented by proper names, to be found in the earliest period of Indian literature antecedent to the rise of Buddhism towards the close of the sixth century B.C. Since the subject came within the range of my special studies and moreover appeared to be one of considerable importance, I agreed to the proposal. But I did so with hesitation, because my leisure for a long time to come was already mortgaged by two works which involved much labour and on which I was already engaged. I soon came to the conclusion that till those works—the *Br̥haddevatā* and the *Vedic Grammar*—were out of my hands, I could spare no time for the third book, the mere preparation, to say nothing of the publication, of which would thus have to be postponed for several years. Another hindrance would be caused by the tour of study and research in India which I contemplated making at the earliest opportunity. With the prospect of these long delays before me, I was tempted to throw up a task that seemed to have been rashly undertaken. At the same time, I was reluctant either to abandon or to put off indefinitely what I had once begun. It also seemed a pity to relinquish an enterprise which, if properly carried out, promised to be very useful.

v1.c2.2

Under these circumstances, collaboration appeared the only way out of the difficulty. I bethought myself of Mr. A. B. Keith, who, as Boden Sanskrit scholar, had been my pupil for four years, and who had already assisted me since 1899, not only by reading the proofs of, but by suggesting improvements in, my *History of Sanskrit Literature* and my *Sanskrit Grammar for Beginners*, as well as my edition of the *Br̥haddevatā*, then commencing to be printed. I accordingly asked him if he had the time and inclination to collaborate with me in the proposed work by at once beginning to collect material for it. He consented without hesitation, and the Secretary of State for India readily sanctioned this modification of the arrangements already made. There was no other man to whom I could have entrusted with such complete confidence the task of carrying out this preliminary work accurately and rapidly.

v1.c2.3

In 1909, about a year after my return from India, Mr. Keith supplied me with a considerable part of his collectanea, while my *Vedic Grammar* was still passing through the press. The regular printing did not begin till early in 1910, about the time when that work was published. The interval was taken up with preparing a sufficient amount of ‘copy’ for the printer, as well as with settling various questions of arrangement and typography.

v1.c2.4

Mode of Collaboration.—Our respective shares in the production of the book are, generally stated, as follows: Dr. Keith has collected the material, while I have acted chiefly as an editor, planning the scope of the work, arranging the distribution of text and notes, selecting the type to be used, cutting out, adding to or modifying the matter, weighing the evidence for different interpretations and conclusions, and deciding as to which view, in case of possible alternatives, should be preferred. Having written up in its final form every article contained in the book, I accept the responsibility for every statement and opinion expressed in it. I do not think that Dr. Keith and I have disagreed upon any material point. When we have differed on minor questions, he has deferred to my judgment, though his view may have been right just as often as mine. Where erroneous conclusions have been drawn, the reader will be helped to correct them by the method I have pursued of supplying from the original texts the evidence on which such conclusions are based.

v1.c2.5

Scope of the Work.—At the outset it was proposed, as I have already stated, that the book should furnish the historical material in Vedic literature as represented by proper names. As soon, however, as I began to examine more carefully the historical material thus available, I became convinced that restriction to proper names would result in a harvest too meagre to deserve being gathered in the form of a book. It seemed essential to collect all the historical matter accessible to us in the earliest literary documents of India, and thus to furnish a conspectus of the most ancient phase of Āryan civilization that can be realized by direct evidence. If properly and thoroughly treated this matter would, I felt sure, yield a book of genuine value, a comprehensive work on Vedic antiquities; for it would include all the information that can be extracted from Vedic literature on such topics as agriculture, astronomy, burial, caste, clothing, crime, diseases, economic conditions, food and drink, gambling, kingship, law and justice, marriage, morality, occupations, polyandry and polygamy, the position of women, usury, village communities, war, wedding ceremonies, widow burning, witchcraft, and many others. The proper names would embrace not only persons, tribes, and peoples, but also mountains, rivers, and countries. The geographical distribution of the Vedic population would thus also be presented.

v1.c2.6

From the historical data amplified in this way I proposed, however, to exclude matter belonging to the domain of religion, which it seemed better to relegate to a separate work. At the same time it soon became clear that certain aspects of religious activity inseparably connected with the social and political life of the age would have to be admitted, such as the functions of the main priests and some festivals or ritual practices. Again, certain names of perhaps purely mythological figures might have to be mentioned. The evidence is occasionally insufficient to show whether a name represents an actual historical personage: a demon or a mythical hero or priest may be meant. An undoubted demon may even have to be included, such as the one that is supposed to cause eclipses, because he belongs to the domain of primitive astronomy.

v1.c2.7

Chronological Limits.—The period which the book was intended to embrace had been decided at the outset as that of the Vedas and Brāhmaṇas. The upper limit here is the date of the oldest hymns of the Rigveda. That date is uncertain, but my conviction (set forth in my *History of Sanskrit Literature*, pp. 11-12) that it is not much earlier than 1200 B.C. still remains unshaken. It does not appear to me to be in the slightest degree invalidated by Professor Hugo Winckler’s discoveries at Boghaz-köi, in Asia Minor, in the year 1907. That scholar has deciphered, in an inscription of about 1400 B.C. found there, the names of certain deities as *mi-it-ra*, *uru-w-na*, *in-da-ra*, and *na-ša-at-ti-ia*, which correspond to those of the important Vedic gods Mitra, Varuṇa, Indra, and Nāsatya. Three inferences may be drawn from the occurrence of these names. They may have been derived from Vedic India; in that case the Vedic religion must have flourished in India considerably before 1400 B.C., even though the hymns that have come down to us may not have been composed before that date. But that these names should have travelled all the way from India to Asia Minor is a hypothesis so highly improbable that it may be dismissed. Secondly, the names may belong to the early Iranian period after the Iranians had separated from the Indians, but before their language had reached the phonetic stage of the Avesta. This seems the most probable theory, both chronologically and geographically. It implies only that the Indian branch had separated from the Iranian, not that it had already entered India. Lastly, the names, being common to the Iranian and Indian languages, might be assigned to the Indo-Iranian period when the two branches were still one people living in Iran. This theory would still allow two centuries for separation, migration to India, and the commencement of Vedic literature in the north-west of India.

v1.c2.8

The lower limit of the Vedic period is the epoch of the rise and spread of Buddhism, or, roughly, 500 B.C. The Brāhmaṇa literature to be exploited was assumed to be undoubtedly anterior to that date. The boundary line would, however, to some extent have to be overstepped by drawing on the Sūtras for evidence where the Vedas and Brāhmaṇas fail. But though the Sūtras are roughly contemporaneous with the first three centuries of Buddhism, they are practically an epitome of the practices of the Brāhmaṇa period, and are thus often of great value in illustration or corroboration of the facts of that period. They are also important as representing the Brahminical evidence for those three centuries, especially as it is somewhat uncertain how far even the earliest Buddhist literary sources go back in an authentic form to the three centuries following the death of Buddha. Names and practices not referred to before the Sūtras were, however, to be mentioned only incidentally if at all: the few cases to the contrary that actually occur are not real exceptions, because they are derived from Vedic verses quoted in Sūtras, or from Brāhmaṇa parts of Sūtras such as Baudhāyana.

v1.c2.9

Method Pursued.—Such was the scope of the work on which I finally decided before it was begun, and the plan has been adhered to in its execution as regards the contents. The manner in which those contents were to be presented was the next question to be settled and acted upon. Though both Dr. Keith and myself are familiar with the literature of the Vedic period from which the facts collected in these two volumes are drawn, and the mutual check exercised by two workers sifting the same material acts as a safeguard, it is nevertheless not always possible to exclude the risk of error or unconscious bias in estimating evidence often obscure and doubtful. I have, therefore, throughout attached great importance to stating not only the evidence of the texts themselves from a first-hand knowledge, but also to setting forth fully the opinions of other authorities when the interpretation is uncertain. The Sanskrit scholar will thus be enabled to test without difficulty the correctness of the conclusions drawn directly from the original sources, while others will be protected from having to rely exclusively on what may possibly be one-sided views. Articles have often been illustrated by adducing parallels from the institutions of cognate Āryan nations, as that on ‘Caste’ (treated under Varṇa, ii. 427-471). I have further endeavoured to utilize, chiefly in the notes, knowledge gained from a first-hand study of the archæological remains and of the modern conditions of India. Such knowledge, acquired during my tour in 1907-08, I have found to be of great value to me both as a student and as a teacher.

v1.c2.10

Arrangement.—The matter contained in these volumes is treated not in chapters, but in articles disposed in alphabetical order. That order was practically necessary when proper names only were to be included; when subjects were subsequently added to the plan, it still remained the most convenient method of arrangement. As all articles appear under Sanskrit words, the order which the latter follow is naturally that of the Sanskrit alphabet. This arrangement need, however, occasion no inconvenience to those users of the book who are unfamiliar with Sanskrit, because all the information they want can be found by reference to the full English Index at the end of Vol. ii. The Sanskrit Index, which contains, in addition to the terms representing the subjects treated, all incidental Sanskrit words occurring in the articles, is of course arranged in the Sanskrit order. For the purpose of obviating any possible inconvenience, the sequence of the Sanskrit alphabet is given on the last page of this preface. With the same end in view I

v1.c2.12

have given translations or explanations of all Sanskrit words and expressions, because the latter, though generally clear to Sanskrit scholars, would be unintelligible to others. Compound Sanskrit words have been divided into their component parts by the use of hyphens. In the case of obscure or irregularly formed Sanskrit words, I have sometimes added etymological explanations, which may be useful even to the Sanskrit scholar.

v1.c2.13

I have long had a rooted objection to crowding the letterpress of a book with parentheses containing a string of references or incidental explanations, because these distract the attention of the reader and interfere with his grasping the argument rapidly. I have accordingly in the present work (as in several previous ones) cleared the text of such obstructive matter, relegating references and minor explanations, illustrations, or discussions, to the notes. The sole exceptions are short references consisting of figures only, and occurring in articles of two or three lines in length. Thus, in the article ‘Kauṣārava’ (i. 194), the figures (viii. 28) are added in parentheses at the end of the line. To have made a footnote out of these figures alone would have been a pedantic and an absurd application of the general principle.

v1.c2.14

The notes are placed in two columns, because this arrangement enables the reader to find them more rapidly than any other. They come at the end of, and immediately below, each article. It is only when the article is a long one extending beyond the first page that the notes do not all occupy this position. Those referring to each page are then placed at the foot of that page, and only those referring to the last page come at the end of the article (cf., e.g., i. Akṣa).

v1.c2.15

The headlines are so arranged as to help the reader in finding what he wants quickly, as well as to convey the maximum of information. A glance at the inner corners at the top will show the alphabetical range of the articles occurring in any two pages, the one indicating the first word on the left page, the other the last word on the right page. The rest of the headline of each page supplies a summary of the contents of that page. I have never been able to find any rational explanation why the title of the book held in one’s hand should be printed at the top of at least half, sometimes of all, the pages it contains. How this practice can possibly assist the reader is hard to understand.

v1.c2.16

Typographical Details.—Every Sanskrit word used as the title of an article is printed in thick type for the purpose of catching the eye of the reader more readily. Every such word mentioned in another article is on its first occurrence there similarly printed. This is both a simpler and a clearer way of referring to a word used in another place than the employment of parentheses and additional words or abbreviations, like ‘see’ or ‘cf.,’ which tend to distract the attention of the reader (see, e.g., Agastya). Both Sanskrit names (including titles of books) and ordinary Sanskrit terms used as English words are printed in Roman type, but then always with a capital (e.g., Purohita). Italic type is employed for Sanskrit words quoted as such, for expressions from other languages such as Latin or French, for the titles of all except Sanskrit books (e.g., Oldenberg, Buddha), and even of Sanskrit books when a particular edition is intended (thus Roth, Nirukta, but Yāska, Nirukta). English words are italicized only when in long articles the titles of subdivisions are given. All these uses of italics will be found exemplified in the articles 2. Akṣa and 3. Akṣa.

v1.c2.17

As regards numerals, Roman figures are employed to indicate the main divisions of a work, the subordinate parts being expressed by Arabic figures. Thus ‘Rigveda, ii. 3, 5,’ means ‘book 2, hymn 3, verse 5.’ The volume, on the other hand, is referred to by an Arabic numeral, the following figure indicating the page. Thus ‘Max Müller, Ṛgveda, 2, 135’ means ‘volume 2 of Max Müller’s edition of the Rigveda, page 135.’

v1.c2.18

I have avoided abbreviating the titles of books or journals even when they occur often, or are mentioned in the notes only. Contracted titles are as a rule intelligible to the general reader only by reference to an explanatory list appearing at the beginning or the end of a book. When a work is written consecutively, such an abbreviation can be looked up on its first occurrence, and as it is usually met with again at short intervals its explanation will be remembered. But in a book arranged in dictionary form, the occurrence of abridged titles becomes irksome to the reader because he meets them at any part of the book he opens, and often many at the same time; he will probably therefore be continually consulting the explanatory list. Hence I have only admitted the contractions ‘Rv.’ for Rigveda and ‘Av.’ for Atharvaveda, as these texts are constantly referred to, often several times in the same article. In some works, such as the *Encyclopædia of Indo-Aryan Research*, excessively contracted titles, frequently assuming the appearance of algebraic symbols, become necessary owing to the great mass of bibliographical references required. In the present work such economy of space was in no way called for. If, however, the book had been intended for the use of Sanskrit scholars only, I should certainly have shortened many titles here given in full, for there are numerous formulaic abbreviations that are familiar to all specialists.

v1.c2.19

Transliteration.—The system here followed is that which has been adopted by the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, and is generally employed elsewhere also. The chief difficulties caused to the non-scholar by this method of reproducing Sanskrit words are due, on the one hand, to the inadequacy of the Roman alphabet, which necessitates the use of diacritical marks, and, on the other, to the conventional use of two consonants in English, in certain cases, to represent a single sound, as *ch*, *sh*, *ph*, and *th*. The letter *ṣ* here is the equivalent of *sh* in ‘shun’; *ś* is somewhat thinner in pronunciation, like the *ss* in ‘session’; *ṃ* resembles the *n* in the French ‘bon’; and *ḥ* the German *ch* in ‘ach.’ The palatal *c* is to be sounded like the initial *ch* in Churchill; *ch* has an aspirate sound like that of the ch in the middle of the same word; ph and th are also aspirates, as in the English ‘up-hill’ and ‘ant-hill’ respectively. The vowels must all be pronounced as in Italian: short when unmarked (except e and o, which are always long), long when they have a horizontal stroke above; thus i is sounded as in ‘pin,’ ī like ee in ‘seen.’ The vowel ṛ may be pronounced like ri in ‘risk.’

v1.c2.20

The Map.—In order that the reader may be enabled to visualize in a general way the territory known to and occupied by the Vedic tribes, I have prefixed to the first volume a map of Vedic India. Here the home of the Indo-Aryans of the earliest period—that of the Rigveda—is the territory drained by the Indus river system, lying between the 35th and 28th parallel of northern latitude and between 70° and 78° eastern longitude, and corresponding roughly to the North-West Frontier Province and the Panjab of the present day. The eastern limit was probably the Yamunā, though the Ganges was already known. In the subsequent Vedic period—that of the later Vedas and of the Brāhmaṇas—the Indo-Aryan settlers gradually occupied the whole of the Ganges Valley down to the delta of that river. But the home of the fully developed culture of the Brāhmaṇas lay in the territory extending in a south-easterly direction from longitude 74° to 85°, between the confluence of the Sarasvatī and Dṛṣadvatī in the west and that of the Sadānīrā and Ganges on the east, and embracing roughly the south-eastern portion of the Panjab and the United Provinces of to-day. East of longitude 85° lay, to the north and south of the Ganges, the imperfectly Brahminized country corresponding to the modern Tirhut and Bihār, where Buddhism arose at the end of the Vedic period.

v1.c2.21

I ought to warn readers against placing too much reliance on the details of this map, because it is largely conjectural owing to the lack of precise geographical statement in the texts. The student, when using it, should always refer to the evidence furnished by the articles under each name that appears on the map. The identification of many of the Vedic rivers with those of modern India is certain; but even here the exact channels in which they flowed in ancient times is doubtful. Thus the Indus, some of the Panjab rivers, and the old Sarasvatī have been shown by Raverty, in an article in the *Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal* for 1892, to have changed their courses considerably, even within historical times. It must be remembered that all the rivers of Vedic India traversed the alluvial plains of the north, and were, therefore, unlike the rivers of the Deccan, which flow in rocky beds, liable to constant fluctuations in their channels. Again, the Vedic tribes are nearly always mentioned so vaguely in the texts that they can only be approximately located by the rivers with which they are connected, or by the way in which their names are associated or grouped. Many such names had to be omitted altogether in the map because of the total lack of evidence for their localization. Some help may be obtained from the geographical position in the post-Vedic period of tribes mentioned in Vedic literature. But this evidence is apt to be doubtful, because the Vedic period was largely one of migration, and various tribes may then have occupied localities much farther north or west than those in which they were later permanently settled. The general evidence of the map, however uncertain many of the details may be, leaves no room for doubt as to the route by which the Āryans entered India, or as to the direction of the successive stages of the migration by which they eventually spread their civilization over the whole of the peninsula.

v1.c2.22

Conclusion.—The first volume was ready for issue more than a year ago, but to publish it without the indexes, which would necessarily have to appear at the end of the second volume, seemed to me to be perfectly useless. I therefore preferred to wait till the whole book could be brought out in a complete form. As both Dr. Keith and myself have each read one proof and nearly always two revises of every sheet before it went to press, all but trivial errors and misprints ought to have been eliminated. I hope, however, that these two volumes will prove to be not only correct in form, but also valuable in matter, after our joint efforts to bring together and present their contents in a convenient and trustworthy manner.