The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v1.c8.30

v1.c8.30

The internal evidence is more satisfactory, if less definite. It is practically certain that the Rigveda was to all intents and purposes complete before the other Saṁhitās came into being, and it is certainly anterior to the whole of the other literature of India, which presupposes it and takes it as given. With this fact accords its language, which is much more archaic than the language of the other early literature of India, and its metre, which has only emerged from the simplest form in which the number of syllables in each line was the sole mark of differentiation of verse from prose. For reasons which are given in the next chapter it is impossible to suppose that the later Saṁhitās date substantially if at all after 800 B. C., and this may probably be taken as the lowest possible date for the completion of the Rigveda. The real difficulty arises in deciding how much farther back the collection is to be carried, and in this regard it is probably necessary to beware of exaggeration.² There are many references in the Rigveda to former poets, and unquestionably, as we have seen, there was a distinct development of language and thought during the period of its production. But to allow too extended a time for the process of development and decline—for it is clear that the end of the period saw the passing from favour of original composition of hymns—is unnecessary, and there are two distinct grounds against adopting any such view. In the first place the poets never attain any very great command of their material, whether in language or metre, though in certain cases poetic results are attained by simple means.³ To the end the structure of the sentences remains naïve and simple, and, when the poet seeks to compass more elaborate thought, his power of expression seriously fails him : it can hardly be supposed that in a period of many centuries the Vedic poet's control over his instruments of expression would not have risen superior to the difficulties which faced him. In the second place, if the Rigveda is put as far back as 1500 B. C., it becomes very difficult to explain the extremely close parallelism between the speech of the Avesta and that of the Rigveda, especially if the traditional date (660–583 b.c.) of Zoroaster is accepted.¹ It is possible to diminish the force of this objection by postulating an earlier epoch for Zoroaster ;² but, even so, it is very doubtful whether the prophet can be carried far enough back to make any earlier date than 1200 b.c. or 1300 b.c.³ for the Rigveda reasonably probable. If we seek to ascribe a higher date than this, we must recognize that we are dealing with conjectures for which no very substantial evidence can be adduced.