The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v1.c27.s7.10

v1.c27.s7.10

It is beyond doubt that in the time of the Rigveda the priesthood was normally hereditary: we have no material for a history of the growth of the special connexion of the families mentioned in the Rigveda such as the Viçvāmitras, Vasiṣṭhas, Atris, Bharadvājas, with the sacrifice: we may assume that at a period when the simpler relations of life prevailed, some family became associated with the ritual through the skill of one of its members or some possession of unusual powers, but that period lies far behind the Rigveda, especially if we believe as is quite possible that a priesthood arose in the Indo-European¹ period. But these families differ essentially in some respects from parallel institutions in other Indo-European lands, showing that the Indo-European idea of priesthood cannot have been highly developed. There is no trace among them of the characteristics of the sacred colleges of the Romans, like the Arval Brothers or the Salii, charged with the oversight of definite parts of the public sacrifices, for there were no public sacrifices. Nor again are they like the Greek families which had hereditary priesthoods, often recognized by the state as at Eleusis, for these again had definite gods or rites to care for, while the Vedic families in the main dealt with the same kinds of rites, the differences between families in the times of which we know being in detail rather than in general aspect. Doubtless the different families were originally marked out by much more serious differences in cult than those which we can verify: the whole process of the relation of the Rigveda and of the ritual suggests syncretism on a large basis, but the possibility of the development of the distinct priesthoods of Greece and Rome was in all probability hampered and finally prevented by the lack of the temple, and of the organization of public worship by the state. The state is a much more permanent instrument than any private men or kings could be: the Vedic kingship was, it is certain,² far from assured, by reason of foreign war and internal dissension, and the priests could not therefore gather as a standing priesthood around the royal house. Nor, to do them justice, do the priests seem to have desired to do so: the impression left by the Rigveda and the ritual alike is that priests were fond of wandering from place to place, performing rites for now this patron, and now that, a fact which probably explains how the innovations discovered from time to time by individuals had comparatively little chance of affecting seriously the main body of the ritual, which has come down to us in essentially the same shape, despite endless variation in unimportant minutiae. The radical changes, if any, perished with their inventors, or at best soon after.