Vedic Index of Names and Subjects v1.c3.s2.35

v1.c3.s2.35

There is nothing to show in the older literature what distinction there was, if any, between Itihāsa and Purāṇa; and the late literature,¹¹ which has been elaborately examined by Sieg,¹² yields no consistent result. Geldner¹³ has conjectured that there existed a single work, the Itihāsa-purāṇa, a collection of the old legends of all sorts, heroic, cosmogonic, genealogical; but though a work called Itihāsa, and another called Purāṇa, were probably known to Patañjali,¹⁴ the inaccuracy of Geldner's view is proved by the fact that Yāska shows no sign of having known any such work. To him the Itihāsa may be a part of the Mantra literature itself,¹⁵ Aitihāsikas being merely people who interpret the Rigveda by seeing in it legends where others see myths.¹⁶ The fact, however, that the use of the compound form is rare, and that Yāska regularly has Itihāsa,¹⁷ not Itihāsa-purāṇa, is against the theory of there ever having been one work.