1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Sanskrit

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

SANSKRIT, the name applied by Hindu scholars to the ancient literary language of India. The word saṃskṛita is the past participle of the verb kar(kṛ), “to make” (cognate with Latin creo), with the preposition sam, “together” (cog. ἅμα, ὁμός, Eng. “same”), and has probably to be taken here in the sense of “completely formed” or “ accurately made, polished, refined”—some noun meaning “speech” (esp. bhāshā) being either expressed or understood with it. The term was, doubtless, originally adopted by native grammarians to distinguish the literary language from the uncultivated popular dialects—the forerunners of the modern vernaculars of northern India—which had developed side by side with it, and which were called (from the same root kar, but with a different preposition) Prākṛita, i.e. either “derived” or “natural, common” forms of speech. This designation of the literary idiom, being intended to imply a language regulated by conventional rules, also involves a distinction between the grammatically fixed language of Brāhmanical India and an earlier, less settled, phase of the same language exhibited in the Vedic writings. For convenience the Vedic language is, however, usually included in the term, and scholars generally distinguish between the Vedic and the classical Sanskrit.

I. Sanskrit Language

The Sanskrit language, with its old and modern descendants, represents the easternmost branch of the great Indo-Germanic, or Aryan, stock of speech. Philological research has clearly established the fact that the Indo-Aryans must originally have immigrated into India from the north-west. In the oldest literary documents handed down by them their gradual advance can indeed be traced from the slopes of eastern Kabulistan down to the land of the five rivers (Punjab), and thence to the plains of the Yamunā (Jumna) and Gangā (Ganges). Numerous special coincidences, both of language and mythology, between the Vedic Aryans and the peoples of Iran also show that these two members of the Indo-Germanic family must have remained in closing connexion for some considerable period after the others had separated from them.

The origin of comparative philology dates from the time when European scholars became accurately acquainted with the ancient language of India. Before that time classical scholars had been unable to determine the true relations between the then known languages of our stock. This fact alone shows the importance of Sanskrit for comparative research. Though its value in this respect has perhaps at times been overrated, it may still be considered the eldest daughter of the old mother-tongue. Indeed, so far as direct documentary evidence goes, it may be said to be the only surviving daughter; for none of the other six principal members of the family have left any literary monuments, and their original features have to be reproduced, as best they can, from the materials supplied by their own daughter languages: such is the case as regards the Iranic, Hellenic, Italic, Celtic, Teutonic and Letto-Slavic languages. To the Sanskrit the antiquity and extent of its literary documents, the transparency of its grammatical structure, the comparatively primitive state of its accent system, and the thorough grammatical treatment it has early received at the hand of native scholars must ever secure the foremost place in the comparative study of Indo-Germanic speech.

The Sanskrit alphabet consists of the following sounds:— Alphabet.

(a) Fourteen vowels, viz:
Ten simple vowels: a, ā, i, ī, u, ū, , , (); and
Four diphthongs: ē, āi, ō, āu.
(b) Thirty-three consonants, viz.:
Five series of mutes and nasals:
guttural: k kh g gh
palatal: c ch j jh ñ
lingual: ṭh ḍh
dental: t th d dh n
labial: p ph b bh m;
Four semivowels: y r l v (w)
Three sibilants: palatal ś (ç), lingual (sh), dental s; and
A soft aspirate: h.
(c) Three unoriginal sounds, viz.
visarga (), a hard aspirate, standing mostly for original s or r; and
two nasal sounds of less close contact than the mute-nasals, viz. anusvāra () and anunāsika ().

As regards the vowels, a prominent feature of the language Vowels. is the prevalence of a-sounds, these being about twice as frequent as all the others, including diphthongs taken together (Whitney).

The absence of the short vowels ĕ and ŏ from the Sanskrit alphabet, and the fact that Sanskrit shows the a-vowel where other vowels appear in other languages—e.g. bharantam = φέροντα, ferentem; janas = γένος, genus—were formerly considered as strong evidence in favour of the more primitive state of the Sanskrit vowel system as compared with that of the sister languages. Recent research has, however, shown pretty conclusively from certain indications in the Sanskrit language itself that the latter must at one time have possessed the same, or very nearly the same, three vowel-sounds, and that the differentiation of the original a-sound must, therefore, have taken place before the separation of the languages. Thus, Sans. carati, he walks, would seem to require an original kěrĕti (Gr. πέλει = queleti, Lat. colit), as otherwise the guttural k could not have changed to the palatal c (see below); and similarly Sans. jānu, knee, seems to stand for gēnu (Lat. genu, Gr. γόνυ). Not impossibly, however, this prevalence of pure a-sounds in Sanskrit may from the very beginning have been a mere theoretical or graphic feature of the language, the difference of pronunciation having not yet been pronounced enough for the early grammarians to have felt it necessary to clearly distinguish between the different shades of a-sounds.

The vowels ē and ō, though apparently simple sounds, are classed as diphthongs, being contracted from original ăi and ău respectively, and liable to be treated as such in the phonetic modifications they have to undergo before any vowel except ă.

As regards the consonants, two of the five series of Consonants. mutes, the palatal and lingual series, are of secondary (the one of Indo-Iranian, the other of purely Indian) growth.

The palatals are, as a rule, derived from original gutturals, the modification being generally due to the influence of a neighbouring palatal sound i or y, or ĕ (ä). The surd aspirate ch, in words of Indo-Germanic origin, almost invariably goes back to original sk: e.g. chid- (chind-) = scindo, σχίζω: chāyā = σκιά (O.E. scin, shine); Sans. acchati =βάσκει.

The palatal sibilant ś (pronounced sh) likewise originated from a guttural mute k, but one of somewhat different phonetic value from that represented by Sanskrit k or c. The latter, usually designated by k² (or q), is frequently liable to labialization (or dentalization) in Greek, probably owing to an original pronunciation kw (qu): e.g. katara = πότερος, uter; while the former (k¹) shows invariably κin Greek, and a sibilant in the Letto-Slavic and the Indo-Iranian languages: e.g. śvan (śun) = κύων (κυν), canis, Ger. Hund; daśan = δέκα, decem, Goth. taihun.

The non-original nature of the palatals betrays itself even in Sanskrit by their inability to occur at the end of a word—e.g. acc. vācam = Lat. vocem, but nom. vāk = vox—and by otherwise frequently reverting to the guttural state.

The linguals differ in pronunciation from the dentals in their being uttered with the tip of the tongue turned up to the dome of the palate, while in the utterance of the dentals it is pressed against the upper teeth, not against the upper gums as is done in the English dentals, which to Hindus sound more like their own linguals. The latter, when occurring in words of Aryan origin, are, as a rule, modifications of original dentals, usually accompanied by the loss of an r or other adjoining consonant; but more commonly they occur in words of foreign, probably non-Aryan, origin. Of regular occurrence in the language, however, is the change of dental n into lingual , and of dental s into lingual , when preceded in the same word by certain other letters. The combination kṣ seems sometimes to stand for ks (? kst) as in Sans. akṣa, Gr. ἄξων, axle; Sans. dakshiṇa, Gr. δέξιος (but Lat. dexter); sometimes for kt, e.g. Sans. kshiti, Gr. κτίσις (but Sans. kshiti = Gr. φθίσις); Sans. takshan, Gr. τέκτων.

The sonant aspirate h is likewise non-original, being usually derived from original sonant aspirated mutes, especially gh, e.g. haṃsa = χήν (for χανς), anser, Ger. Gans; aham = ἐγών, ego, Goth. ik.

The contact of final and initial letters of words in the same sentence is often attended in Sanskrit with considerable euphonic modifications; Phonetic changes. and we have no means of knowing how far the practice of the vernacular language may have corresponded to these phonetic theories. There can be no doubt, however, that a good deal in this respect has to be placed to the account of grammatical reflection; and the very facilities which the primitive structure of the language offered for grammatical analysis and an insight into the principles of internal modification may have given the first impulse to external modifications of a similar kind.

None of the cognate languages exhibits in so transparent a manner as the Sanskrit the cardinal principle of Indo-Germanic word-formation by the addition of inflectional endings—either case-endings or personal terminations (themselves probably original roots)—to stems obtained, mainly by means of suffixes, from monosyllabic roots, with or without internal modifications.

There are in Sanskrit declension three numbers and seven cases, not counting the vocative, viz. nominative, accusative, instrumental Declension. (or sociative), dative, ablative, genitive and locative. As a matter of fact, all these seven cases appear, however, only in the singular of a-stems and of the pronominal declension. Other noun-stems have only one case-form for the ablative and genitive singular. In the plural, the ablative everywhere shares its form with the dative (except in the personal pronoun, where it has the same ending as in the singular), whilst the dual shows only three different case-forms—one for the nominative and accusative, another for the instrumental, dative, and ablative, and a third for the genitive and locative.

The declension of a-stems corresponding to the first and second Latin declensions is of especial interest, not so much on account of its being predominant from the earliest time, and becoming more and more so with the development of the language, but because it presents the greatest number of alternative forms, which supply a kind of test for determining the age of literary productions, a test which indeed has already been applied to some extent by Professor Lanman, in his excellent Statistical Account of Noun Inflexion in the Veda. These alternative case-forms are:—

1. āsas and ās for the nominative plural masc. and fem.: e.g. aśvāsas and aśvās = equi (equae). The forms in āsas—explained by Bopp as the sign of the plural as applied twice, and by Schleicher as the sign of the plural as added to the nominative singular—occur to those in ās (i.e. the ordinary plural sign as added to the a-stem) in the Ṛigveda in the proportion of 1 to 2, and in the peculiar parts of the Atharvaveda in that of 1 to 25, whilst the ending ās alone remains in the later language.

2. ā and āni for the nominative and accusative plural of neuters: as yugā, yugāni = ζυγά, juga. The proportion of the former ending to the latter in the Ṛik is 11 to 7, in the Atharvan 2 to 3, whilst the classical Sanskrit knows only the second form.

3. ēbhis and āis for the instrumental plural masc. and neuter, e.g. devēbhis, devāis. In the Ṛik the former forms are to the latter in the proportion of 5 to 6, in the Atharvan of 1 to 5, while in the later language only the contracted form is used. The same contraction is found in other languages; but it is doubtful whether it did not originate independently in them.

4. ā and āu for the nominative and accusative dual masc., e.g. ubhā, ubhāu = ἄμφω. In the Ṛik forms in ā outnumber those in āu more than eight times; whilst in the Atharvan, on the contrary, those in āu (the only ending used in the classical language) occur five times as often as those in ā.

5. ā and ena (enā) for the instrumental singular masc. and neut., as dānā, dānena = dono. The ending ena is the one invariably used in the later language. It is likewise the usual form in the Veda; but in a number of cases it shows a final long vowel which, though it may be entirely due to metrical requirements, is more probably a relic of the normal instrumental ending ā, preserved for prosodic reasons. For the simple ending ā, as compared with that in ena, Professor Lanman makes out a proportion of about 1 to 9 in the Ṛigveda (altogether 114 cases); while in the peculiar parts of the Atharvan he finds only 11 cases.

6. ām and ānām for the genitive plural, e.g. (aśvām), aśvānām = ἵππων, equum (equorum). The form with inserted nasal (doubtless for anām, as in Zend aśpanām), which is exclusively used in the later language, is also the prevailing one in the Ṛik. There are, however, a few genitives of a-stems in original ām (for a-ām), which also appear in Zend, Professor Lanman enumerating a dozen instances, some of which are, however, doubtful, while others are merely conjectural.

The Sanskrit verb system resembles that of the Greek in variety and completeness. While the Greek excels in nicety and definiteness Verb system. of modal distinction, the Sanskrit surpasses it in primitiveness and transparency of formation. In this part of the grammatical system there is, however, an even greater difference than in the noun inflection between the Vedic and the classical Sanskrit. While the former shows, upon the whole, the full complement of modal forms exhibited by the Greek, the later language has practically discarded the subjunctive mood. The Indo-Aryans never succeeded in working out a clear formative distinction between the subjunctive and indicative moods; and, their syntactic requirements becoming more and more limited, they at last contented themselves, for modal expression, with a present optative and imperative, in addition to the indicative tense-forms, and a little-used aorist optative with a special “precative” or “benedictine” meaning attached to it.

Another part of the verb in which the later language differs widely from Vedic usage is the infinitive. The language of the old hymns shows a considerable variety of case-forms of verbal abstract nouns with the function of infinitives, a certain number of which can still be traced back to the parent language, as, for instance, such dative forms as jīv-áse = viv-ere; sáh-adhyāi = ἔχεσθαι; dā′-mane = δόμεναι; dā′-vane = δοῦναι. Further, ji-shé, “to conquer,” for ji-sé, apparently an aorist infinitive with the dative ending (parallel to the radical forms, such as yudh-é, “to fight,” dṛs′-é, “to see”), thus corresponding to the Greek aorist infinitive λῦσαι (but cf. also Latin da-re, for dase, es-se, &c.). The classical Sanskrit, on the other hand, practically uses only one infinitive form, viz. the accusative of a verbal noun in tu, e.g. sthātum, etum, corresponding to the Latin supinum datum, itum. But, as in Latin another case, the ablative (datū), of the same abstract noun is utilized for a similar purpose, so the Vedic language makes two other cases do duty as infinitives, viz. the dative in tave (e.g. dā̇tave, and the anomalous étavā̇i) and the gen.-abl. in tos (dā̇tos). A prominent feature of the later Sanskrit syntax is the so-called gerund or indeclinable participle in tvā, apparently the instrumental of a stem in tvá (probably a derivative from that in tu), as well as the gerund in ya (or tya after a final short radical vowel) made from compound verbs. The old language knows not only such gerunds in tvā, using them, however, very sparingly, but also corresponding dative forms in tvāya (yuktvāya) and the curious contracted forms in tvī′ (kṛtvī, “to do”). And, besides those in ya and tya, it frequently uses forms with a final long vowel, as bhid-yā, i-tyā, thus showing the former to be shortened instrumentals of abstract nouns in i and ti.

The Sanskrit verb, like the Greek, has two voices, active and middle, called, after their primary functions, parasmāi-pada, “word for another,” and ātmane-pada, “word for one's self.” While in Greek the middle forms have to do duty also for the passive in all tenses except the aorist and future, the Sanskrit, on the other hand, has developed for the passive a special present-stem in ya, the other tenses being supplied by the corresponding middle forms, with the exception of the third person singular aorist, for which a special form in i is usually assigned to the passive.

The present-stem system is by far the most important part of the whole verb system, both on account of frequency of actual occurrence and of its excellent state of preservation. It is with regard to the different ways of present-stem formation that the entire stock of assumed roots has been grouped by the native grammarians under ten different classes. These classes again naturally fall under two divisions or “conjugations,” with this characteristic difference that the one (corresponding to Gr. conj. in ω) retains the same stem (ending in a) throughout the present and imperfect, only lengthening the final vowel before terminations beginning with v or m (not final); while the other (corresponding to that in μι) shows two different forms of the stem, a strong and a weak form, according as the accent falls on the stem-syllable or on the personal ending: e.g. 3 sing. bhára-ti, φέρει—2 pl. bhára-tha, φέρετε: but é-ti, εἷσιi-thá, ἴτε (for ἰτέ): 1 sing. stṛṇó-mi, στόρνυμι—1 pl. stṛṇu-más (στόρνυμες).

As several of the personal endings show a decided similarity to personal or demonstrative pronouns, it is highly probable that, as might indeed be a priori expected, all or most of them are of pronominal origin—though, owing to their exposed position and consequent decay, their original form and identity cannot now be determined with certainty. The active singular terminations, with the exception of the second person of the imperative, are unaccented and of comparatively light appearance; while those of the dual and plural, as well as the middle terminations, have the accent, being apparently too heavy to be supported by the stem-accent, either because, as Schleicher supposed, they are composed of two different pronominal elements, or otherwise. The treatment of the personal endings in the modifying, and presumably older, conjugation may thus be said somewhat to resemble that of enclitics in Greek.

In the imperfect the present-stem is increased by the augment, consisting of a prefixed ă. Here, as in the other tenses in which it appears, it has invariably the accent, as being the distinctive element (originally probably an independent demonstrative adverb “then”) for the expression of past time. This shifting of the word-accent seems to have contributed to the further reduction of the personal endings, and thus to have caused the formation of a new, or secondary, set of terminations which came to be appropriated for secondary tenses and moods generally. As in Greek poetry, the augment is frequently omitted in Sanskrit.

The mood-sign of the subjunctive is ă, added to (the strong form of) the tense-stem. If the stem ends already in ă, the latter becomes lengthened. As regards the personal terminations, some persons take the primary, others the secondary forms, while others again may take either the one or the other. The first singular active, however, takes ni instead of mi, to distinguish it from the indicative. But besides these forms, showing the mood-sign ă, the subjunctive (both present and aorist) may take another form, without any distinctive modal sign, and with the secondary endings, being thus identical with the augment less form of the preterit.

The optative invariably takes the secondary endings, with some peculiar variations. In the active of the modifying conjugation its mood-sign is , affixed to the weak form of the stem: e.g. root assyām = Lat. siem, sīm (where Gr., from analogy to ἐστί, &c., shows irregularly the strong form of the stem, εἴην, for ἐσ-ιη-ν: as in 1st sing. of verbs in ω, it also has irregularly the primary ending, λείποιμι = S. rece-y-am); while in the a-conjugation and throughout the middle the mood-sign is ī, probably a contraction of : e.g. bháres = φέροις.

Besides the ordinary perfect, made from a reduplicated stem, with distinction between strong (active singular) and weak forms, and a partly peculiar set of endings, the later language makes large use of a periphrastic perfect, consisting of the accusative of a feminine abstract noun in ā (-ām) with the reduplicated perfect forms of the auxiliary verbs kar, “to do,” or as (and occasionally bhū), “to be.” Though more particularly resorted to for the derivative forms of conjugation—viz. the causative (including the so-called tenth conjugational class), the desiderative, intensive and denominative—this perfect-form is also commonly used with roots beginning with prosodically long vowels, as well as with a few other isolated roots. In the Ṛigveda this formation is quite unknown, and the Atharvan offers a single instance of it, from a causative verb, with the auxiliary kar. In the Vedic prose, on the other hand, it is rather frequent,[1] and it is quite common in the later language.

In addition to the ordinary participles, active and middle, of the reduplicated perfect—e.g. jajan-vā̇n, γεγον-ώς: bubudh-āná, πεπυσ-μένο—there is a secondary participial formation, obtained by affixing the possessive suffix vat (vant) to the passive past participle: e.g. kṛta-vant, lit. “having (that which is) done.” A secondary participle of this kind occurs once in the Atharvaveda, and it is occasionally met with in the Brāhmaṇas. In the later language, however, it not only is of rather frequent occurrence, but has assumed quite a new function, viz. that of a finite perfect-form; thus kṛtavan, kṛtavantas, without any auxiliary verb, mean, not “having done,” but “he has done,” “they have done.”

The original Indo-Germanic future-stem formation in sya, with primary endings—e.g. dāsyáti = δώσει (for δώσετι)—is the ordinary tense-form both in Vedic and classical Sanskrit—a preterit of it, with a conditional force attached to it (ádāsyat), being also common to all periods of the language.

Side by side with this future, however, an analytic tense-form makes its appearance in the Brahmaṇas, obtaining wider currency in the later language. This periphrastic future is made by means of the nominative singular of a nomen agentis in tar (dātar, nom. dātā = Lat. dator), followed by the corresponding present forms of as, “to be” (dātā-’smi, as it were, daturus sum), with the exception of the third persons, which need no auxiliary, but take the respective nominatives of the noun.

The aorist system is somewhat complicated, including as it does augment-preterites of various formations, viz. a radical aorist, sometimes with reduplicated stem—e.g. ásthām = ἔστην: śrudhí =κλῦθι; ádudrot; an a-aorist (or thematic aorist) with or without reduplication—e.g. áricas = ἔλιπες: ápaptam, cf. ἔπεφνον; and several different forms of a sibilant-aorist. In the older Vedic language the radical aorist is far more common than the a-aorist, which becomes more frequently used later on. Of the different kinds of sibilant-aorists, the most common is the one which makes its stem by the addition of s to the root, either with or without a connecting vowel i in different roots: e.g. root ji—1 sing. ájāisham, 1 pl. ájāishama; ákramisham, ákramishama. A limited number of roots take a double aorist-sign with inserted connecting vowel (sish for sis)—e.g. áyāsisham (cf. scrip-sis-ti); whilst others—very rarely in the older but more numerously in the later language—make their aorist-stem by the addition of sae.g. ádikshas = ἔδειξας.

As regards the syntactic functions of the three preterites—the imperfect, perfect and aorist—the classical writers make virtually no distinction between them, but use them quite indiscriminately. In the older language, on the other hand, the imperfect is chiefly used as a narrative tense, while the other two generally refer to a past action which is now complete—the aorist, however, more frequently to that which is only just done or completed. The perfect, owing doubtless to its reduplicative form, has also not infrequently the force of an iterative, or intensive, present.

The Sanskrit, like the Greek, shows at all times a considerable power and facility of noun-composition. But, while in the older Word-formation. language, as well as in the earlier literary products of the classical period, such combinations rarely exceed the limits compatible with the general economy of inflectional speech, during the later, artificial period of the language they gradually become more and more excessive, both in size and frequency of use, till at last they absorb almost the entire range of syntactic construction.

One of the most striking features of Sanskrit word-formation is that regular interchange of light and strong vowel-sounds, usually designated by the native terms of guṇa (quality) and vṛiddhi (increase). The phonetic process implied in these terms consists in the raising, under certain conditions, of a radical or thematic light vowel i, u, , l, by means of an inserted a-sound, to the diphthongal (guṇa) sounds ăi (Sans. ē), ău (Sans. ō), and the combination ar and al respectively, and, by a repetition of the same process, to the (vṛiddhi) sounds āi, āu, ār, and āl respectively. Thus from root vid, “to know,” we have véda, “knowledge,” and therefrom vāídika; from yuj, yóga, yāúgika. While the interchange of the former kind, due mainly to accentual causes, was undoubtedly a common feature of Indo-Germanic speech, the latter, or vṛiddhi-change, which chiefly occurs in secondary stems, is probably a later development. Moreover, there can be no doubt that the vṛiddhi-vowels are really due to what the term implies, viz. to a process of “increment,” or vowel-raising. The same used to be universally assumed by comparative philologists as regards the relation between the guṇa-sounds ăi (ē) and ău (ō) and the respective simple i- and u-sounds. According to a more recent theory, however, which has been very generally accepted, we have rather to look upon the heavier vowels as the original, and upon the lighter vowels as the later sounds, produced through the absence of stress and pitch. The grounds on which this theory is recommended are those of logical consistency. In the analogous cases of interchange between and ar, as well as and al, most scholars have indeed been wont to regard the syllabic and as weakened from original ar and al, while the native grammarians represent the latter as produced from the former by increment. Similarly the verb as (ĕs), “to be,” loses its vowel wherever the radical syllable is unaccented, e.g. ásti, Lat. est—smás, s(u)mus; opt. syām, Lat. siēm (sīm). On the strength of these analogous cases of vowel-modification we are, therefore, to accept some such equation as this:—

ásmi: smás = δέρκομαι: ἔδρ(α)κον = λείπω: λιπειν
= émi (εἷμι): imás (ἴμεν for ιμέν)
= φεύγω: φυγειν
= dóhmi (I milk): duhmás.

Acquiescence in this equation would seem to involve at least one important admission, viz. that original root-syllables contained no simple i- and u-vowels, except as the second element of the diphthongs ai, ei, oi; au, eu, ou. We ought no longer to speak of the roots vid, “to know,” dik, “to show, to bid,” dhugh, “to milk,” yug, “to join,” but of veid, deik, dhaugh or dheugh, yeug, &c. Nay, as the same law would apply with equal force to suffixal vowels, the suffix nu would have to be called nau or neu; and, in explaining, for instance, the irregularly formed δείκνυμι, δείκνυμεν, we might say that, by the affixion of νευ to the root δεικ, the present-stem δικνεύ was obtained (δικνεῦμι), which, as the stress was shifted forward, became 1 plur. δικνυμέσ(ι),—the subsequent modifications in the radical and formative syllables being due to the effects of “analogy” (cf. G. Meyer, Griech. Gramm., § 487). Now, if there be any truth in the “agglutination” theory, according to which the radical and formative elements of Indo-Germanic speech were at one time independent words, we would have to be prepared for a pretty liberal allowance, to the parent language, of diphthongal monosyllables such as deík neú, while simple combinations such as dik nu could only spring up after separate syllable-words had become united by the force of a common accent. But, whether the agglutinationists be right or wrong, a theory involving the priority of the diphthongal over the simple sounds can hardly be said to be one of great prima facie probability; and one may well ask whether the requirements of logical consistency might not be satisfied in some other, less improbable, way.

Now, the analogous cases which have called forth this theory turn upon the loss of a radical or suffixal a (ĕ), occasioned by the shifting of the word-accent to some other syllable, e.g. acc. mātáram, instr. mātrā̇; πέτομαι, ἐπτόμην: δέρκομαι, ἔδρ(α)κον: ásmi, smás. Might we not then assume that at an early stage of noun and verb inflection, through the giving way, under certain conditions, of the stem-a (ĕ), the habit of stem-gradation, as an element of inflection, came to establish itself and ultimately to extend its sphere over stems with i- and u-vowels, but that, on meeting here with more resistance[2] than in the a (ĕ)-vowel, the stem-gradation then took the shape of a raising of the simple vowel, in the “strong” cases and verb-forms, by that same a-element which constituted the distinctive element of those cases in the other variable stems? In this way the above equation would still hold good, and the corresponding vowel-grades, though of somewhat different genesis, would yet be strictly analogous. At all events in the opinion of the present writer, the last word has not yet been said on the important point of Indo-Germanic vowel-gradation.

The accent of Sanskrit words is marked only in the more important Vedic texts, different systems of notation being used in different Accentuation. works. Our knowledge of the later accentuation of words is entirely derived from the statements of grammarians. As in Greek, there are three accents, the udātta (“raised,” i.e. acute), the anudātta (“not raised,” i.e. grave), and the svarita (“sounded, modulated,” i.e. circumflex). The last is a combination of the two others, its proper use being confined almost entirely to a vowel preceded by a semivowel y or v, representing an original acuted vowel. Hindu scholars, however, also include in this term the accent of a grave syllable preceded by an acuted syllable, and itself followed by a grave.

The Sanskrit and Greek accentuation's present numerous coincidences. Although the Greek rule, confining the accent within the last three syllables, has frequently obliterated the original likeness, the old features may often be traced through the later forms. Thus, though augmented verb-forms in Greek cannot always have the accent on the augment as in Sanskrit, they have it invariably as little removed from it as the accentual restrictions will allow; e.g. ábharam, ἔφερον: ábharāma, ἐφέρομεν: ábharāmahi, ἐφερόμεθα.

The most striking coincidence in noun declension is the accentual distinction made by both languages between the “strong” and “weak” cases of monosyllabic nouns—the only difference in this respect being that in Sanskrit the accusative plural, as a rule, has the accent on the case-ending, and consequently shows the weak form of the stem; e.g. stem pad, ποδ: pā̇dam, πόδα: padās, ποδός: padí, ποδί: pā̇das, πόδες: padás, πόδας: padā̇m, ποδών: patsú, ποδί. In Sanskrit a few other classes of stems (especially present participles in ant, at), accented on the last syllable, are apt to yield their accent to heavy vowel (not consonantal) terminations; compare the analogous accentuation of Sanskrit and Greek stems in tār: pitáram, πατέρα: pitré, πατρός: pitáras, πατέρες: pitṛ́shu, πατρ(ά)σι.

The vocative, when heading a sentence (or verse-division), has invariably the accent on the first syllable; otherwise it is not accented.

Finite verb-forms also, as a rule, lose their accent, except when standing at the beginning of a sentence or verse-division (a vocative not being taken into account), or in dependent (mostly relative) clauses, or in conjunction with certain particles. Of two or more co-ordinate verb-forms, however, only the first is unaccented.

In writing Sanskrit the natives, in different parts of India, generally employ the particular character used for writing their own vernacular. Written characters. The character, however, most widely understood and employed by Hindu scholars, and used invariably in European editions of Sanskrit works (unless printed in Roman letters) is the Nāgarī or “town-script,” also commonly called Devanāgarī, or nāgarī of the gods.

The origin of the Indian alphabets is still enveloped in doubt. The oldest hitherto known specimens of Indian writing are a number of rock-inscriptions, containing religious edicts in Pāli (the Prākrit used in the southern Buddhist scriptures), issued by the emperor Aśoka (Piyadasi) of the Maurya dynasty, in 253-251 B.C., and scattered over the area of northern India from the vicinity of Peshawar, on the north-west frontier, and Girnar in Gujarat, to Jaugada and Dhauli in Katak, on the eastern coast. The most western of these inscriptions—those found near Kapurdagarhi or Shāhbāzgarhi, and Mansora—are executed in a different alphabet from the others. It reads from right to left, and is usually called the Arian Pāli alphabet, it being also used on the coins of the Greek and Indo-Scythian princes of Ariana; while the other, which reads from left to right, is called the Indian Pāli alphabet. The former—also called Kharoshṭhī or Gāndhāra alphabet (lipi)—which is manifestly derived from a Semitic (probably Aramaean) source, has left no traces on the subsequent development of Indian writing. The Indo-Pāli (or Brāhmī) alphabet, on the other hand, from which the modern Indian alphabets are derived, is of more uncertain origin. The similarity, however, which several of its letters present to those of the old Phoenician alphabet (itself probably derived from the Egyptian hieroglyphics) suggests for this alphabet also the probability of a Semitic origin, though, already at Aśoka's time, the Indians had worked it up to a high degree of perfection and wonderfully adapted it to their peculiar scientific ends. The question as to the probable time and channel of its introduction can scarcely be expected ever to be placed beyond all doubt. The late Professor Bühler has, however, made it very probable that this alphabet was introduced into India by traders from Mesopotamia about 800 B.C. At all events, considering the high state of perfection it exhibits in the Maurya and Andhra inscriptions, as well as the wide area over which these are scattered, it can hardly be doubted that the art of writing must have been known to and practised by the Indians for various purposes long before the time of Aśoka. The fact that no reference to it is found in the contemporary literature has probably to be accounted for by a strong reluctance on the part of the Brāhmans to commit their sacred works to writing.

As regards the numeral signs used in India, the Kharoshṭhī inscriptions of the early centuries of our era show a numerical system in which the first three numbers are represented by as many vertical strokes, whilst 4 is marked by a slanting cross, and 5-9 by 4(+) 1, &c., to 4(+)4(+)1; then special signs for 10, 20 and 100, the intervening multiples of IO being marked in the vigesimal fashion, thus 50 = 20(+)20(+)10. This system has been proved to be of Semitic, probably Aramaic, origin. In the Brāhmī inscriptions up to the end of the 6th century of our era, another system is used in which 1-3 are denoted by as many horizontal strokes, and thereafter by special syllabic signs for 4-9, the decades 10-90, and for 100 and 1000. This system was most likely derived from hieratic sources of Egypt. The decimal system of cipher notation, on the other hand, which is first found used on a Gujarat inscription of A.D. 595, seems to be an invention of Indian astronomers or mathematicians, based on the existing syllabic (or word) signs or equivalents thereof.

The first two Sanskrit grammars published by Europeans were those of the Austrian Jesuit Wesdin, called Paulinus a Sancto Bartholomaeo (Rome, 1790-1804). These were followed by those of H. C. Colebrooke (1805; based on Pāṇini's system), Carey (1806), Wilkins (1808), Forster (1810), F. Bopp (1827), H. H. Wilson, Th. Benfey, &c. These, as well as those of Max Müller, Monier Williams and F. Kielhorn, now most widely used, deal almost exclusively with classical Sanskrit; whilst that of W. D. Whitney treats the whole language historically; as does also J. Wackernagel's not yet completed Altindische Grammatik.

The first Sanskrit dictionary was that of H. H. Wilson (1819; 2nd ed., 1832), which was followed by the great Sanskrit-German Wérterbuch, published at St Petersburg in 7 vols. by Professors Bohtlingk and Roth. Largely based on this great thesaurus are the Sanskrit-English dictionaries by Sir M. Williams (2nd ed., 1899), Th. Benfey, A. A. Macdonell, &c. On the history of the Indian alphabets, cf. G. Buhler, Indische Paldographfie (1896); A. C. Burnell, Elements of South Indian Palaeography (2nd ed., 1878), R. Cust's résumé in Jour. Roy. As. Soc., N.s. vol. xvi.

II. Sanskrit Literature

The history of Sanskrit literature labours under the same disadvantage as the political history of ancient India from the total want of anything like a fixed chronology. In that vast range of literary development there is scarcely a work of importance the date of which scholars have fixed with absolute certainty. The original composition of most Sanskrit works can indeed be confidently assigned to certain general periods of literature, but as to many of them, and these among the most important, scholars have but too much reason to doubt whether they have come down to us in their original shape, or whether they have not undergone alterations and additions so serious as to make it impossible to regard them as genuine witnesses of any one phase of the development of the Indian mind. Nor can we expect many important chronological data from new materials brought to light in India. Though by such discoveries a few isolated spots may be lighted up here and there, the real task of clearing away the mist which at present obscures our view, if ever it can be cleared away, will have to be performed by patient research and a more minute critical examination of the multitudinous writings which have been handed down from the remote past. In the following sketch it is intended to take a rapid View of the more important works and writers in the several departments of literature.

In accordance with the two great phases of linguistic development referred to, the history of Sanskrit' literature readily divides itself into two principal periods-the Vedic and the classical. These periods partly overlap, and some of the later Vedic work are included in that period on account of the subjects with which they deal, and for their archaic style, rather than for any just claim to a higher antiquity than may

have to be assigned to the oldest works of the classical Sanskrit.


The term veda—i.e. “knowledge,” (sacred) “lore”—embraces a body of writings the origin of which is ascribed to divine revelation (éruti, literally “hearing”), and which forms the foundation of the Brahmanical system of religious belief. Samhitas.This sacred canon is divided into three, or (according to a later scheme) four co-ordinate collections, likewise called Veda: (1) the Rig-veda, or lore of praise (or hymns); (2) the Sama-veda, or lore of tunes (or chants); (3) the Yajurveda, or lore of prayer (or sacrificial formulas); and (4) the Atharva-veda, or lore of the Atharvans. Each of these four Vedas consists primarily of a collection (samhitci) of sacred, mostly poetical, texts of a devotional nature, called mantra. This entire body of texts (and particularly the first three collections) is also frequently referred to as the trayfi vidyzi, or threefold wisdom, of hymn (rich[4]), tune or chant (saman), and prayer (yajus)-the fourth Veda, if at all included, being in that case classed together with the Rik.

The Brahmanical religion finds its practical expression chiefly in sacrificial performances. The Vedic sacrifice requires for its proper performance the attendance of four officiating priests, each of whom is assisted by one or more (usually three) subordinateClasses of priests priests, viz.: (1) the H otar (or hotzi, i.e. either “ sacrifice, " or “ invoker ”), whose chief business is to invoke the gods, either in short prayers pronounced over the several oblations, or in liturgical recitations (fastra), made up of various hymns and detached verses; (2) the Udgdtar (udgatri), or chorister, who has to perform chants (stotra) in connexion with the hotar's recitations; (3) the Adhvaryu, or onering priest par excellence, who performs all the material duties of the sacrifice, such as the kindling of the fires, the preparation of the sacrificial ground and the offerings, the making of-oblations, &c.; (4) the Brahman, or chief “ priest, ” who has to superintend the performance and to rectify any mistakes that may be committed. Now, the first three of these priests stand in special relation to three of the Vedic Samhitas in this way: that the Samhitas of the Samaveda and Yajurveda form special song and prayer books, arranged for the practical use of the udgatar and adhvaryu respectively; whilst the Rik-samhita, though not arranged for any such practical purpose, contains the entire body of sacred lyrics whence the hotar draws the material for his recitations. The brahman, however, had no special text-book assigned to him, but was expected to be familiar with all the Samhitas as well as with the practical details of the sacrificial performance (see Brahman and Brāhmana). It sometimes happens that verses not found in our version of the Rik-samhita, but in the Atharvavedasamhita, are used by the hotar; but such texts, if they did not actually form part of some other version of the Rik-as Sayana in the introduction to his commentary on the Rik-sarnhita assures us that they did—were probably inserted in the liturgy subsequent to the recognition of the fourth Veda. The several Samhitas have attached to them certain theological prose works, called Brāhmaṇa, which, though subordinate in authority to the Mantras or Samhitas, are like them mam, ,, held to be divinely revealed and t.o form part of the canon. The chief works of this class are of an exegetic nature, —their purport being to supply a dogmatic exposition of the sacrificial ceremonial and to explain the mystic import of the different rites and utterances included therein (see Brāhmaṇa).

More or less closely connected with the Brāhmaṇas (and in a few exceptional cases with Sarnhitas) are two classes of treatises, called Araṇyaka and Upanishad. The Aranyakas, l.e. works “relating to the -forest, ” being intended to be read by those who have retired from the world and lead the life of anchorites, do not greatly differ in character and style from the Brāhmaṇas, but like them are chiefly ritualistic, treating of special ceremonies not dealt with, or dealt with only imperfectly, in the latter works, to which they thus stand in the relation 3, -agyaka, of supplements. The Upanishads, however, are of a and purely speculative nature, and must be looked upon as Ugagi the first attempts at a systematic treatment of meta-physical questions. The number of Upanishads hitherto known is very considerable (about 170); but, though they nearly all profess to belong to the Atharvaveda, they have to be assigned to very different periods of Sanskrit literature-some of them being evidently quite modern productions. The oldest treatises of this kind are doubtless those which form part of the Samhitas, Brahmanas and Aranyakas of the three older Vedas, though not a few others which have no such special connexion have to be classed with the later products of the Vedic age.[5]

As the sacred texts were not committed to writing till a much later period, but were handed down orally in the Brahmanical schools, it was inevitable that local differences of Different reading should spring up, which in course of time gave rise to a number of independent versions. Such different text-recension's, called ṣakhā (i.e. branch), were at one time very numerous, but only a limited number have survived. As regards the Samhitas, the poetical form of the hymns, as well as the concise style of the sacrificial formulas, would render these texts less liable to change, and the discrepancies of different versions would chiefly consist in various readings of single words or in the different arrangement of the textual matter. But the diffuse ritualistic discussions and loosely connected legendary illustrations of the Brahmanas offered scope for very considerable modifications in the traditional matter, either through the ordinary processes of oral transmission or through the special influence of individual teachers.

Besides the purely ceremonial matter, the 'Brahmanas also contained a considerable amount of matter bearing on the correct interpretation of the Vedic texts; and, indeed, the sacred obligation incumbent on the Brahmans of handing down correctly the letter and sense of those texts necessarily involved a good deal of serious grammatical and etymological study in the Brahmanical schools. These literary pursuits could not but result in the accumulation of much learned material, which it would become more and more desirable to throw into a systematic form, serving at the same time as a guide for future research. These practical requirements were met by a class of treatises, grouped under six different heads or subjects, called Veddngas, i.e. members, or limbs, of the (body of the) Veda. None of the works, however, which have come down to us under this designation can lay any just claim to being considered the original treatises on their several subje cts; they evidently represent a more or less advanced stage of scientific development. Though a few of them are composed in metrical form-especially in the ordinary epic couplet, the anushtubh floka, consisting of two lines of sixteen syllables (or of two octosyllabic padas) each-the majority belong to a class of writings called sutra, i.e. “ string, ” consisting of strings of rules in the shape of tersely expressed aphorisms, intended to be committed to memory. The Sutras form a connecting link between the Vedic and the classical periods of literature. But, although these treatises, so far as they deal with Vedic subjects, are included by the' native authorities among the Vedic writings, and in point of language may, generally speaking, be considered as the latest products of the Vedic age, they have no share in the sacred title of .fruti or revelation. They are of human, not of divine, origin. Yet, as the production of men of the highest standing, profoundly versed in Vedic lore, the Sutras are regarded as works of great authority, second only to that of the revealed Scriptures; and their relation to the latter is expressed in the generic title of Smqiti, or Tradition, usually applied to them. The six branches of Vedic science, included under the term Vedanga, are as follows:-

1. Sikshd, or Phonetics.-The privileged position of representing this subject is assigned to a small treatise ascribed to the great grammarian Panini, viz. the Pzininiyzi étkshd, extant ph°"e"°5' in two different (Rik and Yajus) recension's. But neither this treatise nor any other of the numerous éikshas which have recently come to light can lay claim to any very high age. Scholars, however, usually include under this head certain wor s, called Prciliécikhya, i.e. “ belonging to a certain .ffikhti or recension, " which deal minutely with the phonetic peculiarities of the several Samhitas, and are of great importance for the textual criticism of the Vedic Samhitas.

2. Chhandas, or Metre.-Tradition makes the Chhandah-Mitra of Pingala the starting-point of prosody. The Vedic metres, however, occupy but a small part of this treatise, and they are evidently dealt with in a more original manner in the N idana-sutra of the Samaveda, and in a chapter of theRik-pratiéakhya. For profane prosody, on the other hand, Pingala's treatise is rather valuable, no less than 160 metres being described by him. 3. Vyzikarrma, or Grammar.-Panini's famous grammar is said ar, to be the Vedanga; but it marks the culminating point of “wma” grammatical research rather than the beginning, and besides treats chiefly of the post-Vedic language. 4. Nzrukta, or Etymology.-Yaska's Nifukta is the traditional representative of thisl subjecb and this ifnportarglt wcirk certainly deals entire with edic et moo an exp anation. t Etymology' consists, in ifhe first place, yof stghgs of words in three chapters: (1) synonymous words; (2) such as are purely or chiefly Vedic; and (3) names of deities. These lists are followed by Y?1ska's commentary, interspersed with numerous illustrations. Yaska, again, quotes several predecessors in the same branch of science; and it is probable that the original works on this subject consisted merely of lists of words similar to those handed down by him.

5. fyotisha, or Astronomy.-Although astronomical calculations are frequently referred to in older works in connexion with the A tm performance of sacrifices, the metrical treatise which has S nomy' come down to us in two different recension's under the title of Jyotisha, ascribed to one Lagadha, or Lagata, seems indeed to be the oldest existing systematic treatise on astronomical subjects. With the exception of some apparently spurious verses of one of the recension's, it betrays no sign of the Greek influence which shows itself in Hindu astronomical works from about the 3r<l century of our era; and its date may therefore be set down as probably not later than the early centuries after Christ. 6. Kalpa, or Ceremonial.-Tradition does not single out any special work as the Vedanga in this branch of Vedic science; but the sacrificial practice gave rise to a large number of Gere' systematic sutra-manuals for the several classes of priests. The most important of these works have come down to us, and they occupy by far the most prominent place among the literary productions of the Sutra-period. The Kalpa-sutras, or rules of ceremonial, are of two kinds: (1) the Srauta-siilras, which are based on the sruti, and teach the performance of the great sacrifices, requiring three sacrificial fires; and (2) the Smdrta-siitras, or rules based on the smriti or tradition. The latter class again includes two kinds of treatises: (1) the Gfihya-sdtras, or domestic rules, treating of ordinary family rites, such as marriage, birth, name giving, Src., connected with simple offerings in the domestic fire; and (2) the Sziinaydchdrika- (or Dharma-) szitras, which treat of customs and temporal duties, and are supposed to have formed the chief sources of the later law-books. Besides, the Srauta-sutras of the Yajurveda have usually attached to them a set of so-called rfulva-siilras, Le. “ rules of the cord, " which treat of the measurement by means of cords, and the construction, of different kinds of altars required for sacrifices. These treatises are of special interest as supplying important information regarding the earliest geometrical operations in India. Along with the Sutras may be classed a large number of supplementary treatises, usually called Parifishpa. (1mpa>t1r6urva.), on various subjects connected with the sacred texts and Vedic religion generally.,

M e tre.


After this brief characterization of the various branches of Vedic literature, we proceed to take a rapid survey of the several Vedic collections.

A. }§ igtieda. LThe Kigzfeda-samhilzi has come down to us in the 1 The Rigveda has been edited, together with the commentary of Siyana (of the 14th century), by Max Müller (6 vols., London, 1849-1874; 2nd ed., 4 vols., 1890-1892). The same scholar has published an edition of the hymns, both in the connected (samhitli) and the disjoined (pads) texts, 1875-1877. An edition in Roman transliteration was published by Th. Aufrecht (Berlin, 186H863, 2nd ed. 1877). Part of an English translation (chiefly based on Sayana's interpretation) was brought out by the late Professor H. H. /Vilson (vols. i.-iii., 1850-1857) and completed by Professor E. B. Cowell (vols. iv.-vi., 1866-1888). We have also the first volume of a translation, with a running XXIV. 6

recension of the Sakala school. Mention is made of several other versions; and regarding one of them, that of the Bashkalas, we have some further information, according to whichit seems, Ri d however, to have differed but little from the Sakala text. ° 'WZ 'Z The latter consists of 1028 hymns, including eleven sam im so-called Vdlakhilyds, which were probably introduced into the collection subsequently to its completion. The hymns are composed in a great variety of metres, and consist, on an average, of rather more than 10 verses each, or about 10,600 verses altogether. This body of sacred lyrics has been subdivided by ancient authorities in a twofold way, viz. either from a purely artificial point of view, into eight ashpakas of about equal length, or, on a more natural principle, based on the origin of the hymns, and invariably adopted by European scholars, into ten books, or mandalas, of unequal length. Tradition (not, however, always trustworthy in this respect) has handed down the names of the reputed authors, or rather inspired “ seers ” (zishi), of most hymns. These indications have enabled scholars to form some idea as to the probable way in which the Rik-samhita originated, though much still remains to be cleared up by future research.

Mandalas ii.-vii. are evidently arranged on a uniform plan. Each of them is ascribed to a different family of rishis, whence they are usually called the six “ family-books ": ii., the Gritsamadas; iii., the Viévamitras or Kusikas; iv., the Vamadevyas; v., the Atris; vi., the Bharadvajas; and vii., the Vasishthas. Further, each of these books begins with the “hymns addressed to Agni, the god of fire, which are followed by those to Indra, the Jupiter Pluvius, whereupon follow those addressed to minor deities-the Visve Devah (“ all-gods ), the Maruts (storm-gods), &c. Again, the hymns addressed to each deity are arranged in a descending order, according to the number of verses of which they consist. Mandala i., the longest in the whole Samhita, contains 191 hymns, ascribed, with the exception of a few isolated ones, to sixteen poets of different families, and consisting of one larger (50 hymns) and nine shorter collections. Here again the hymns of each author are arranged on precisely the same principle as the. “ family-books.” Mandalas viii. and ix., on the other hand, have a special character of their own. To the Samaveda-samhita, which, as we shall see, consists almost entirely of verses chosen from the Rik for chanting purposes, these two mandalas have contributed a much larger proportion of verses than any of the others. Now, the hymns of the eighth book are ascribed to a number of different rishis, mostly belonging to the Kanva family. The productions of each poet are usually, though not always, grouped together, but no other principle of arrangement has yet been discovered. The chief peculiarity of this mandala, however, consists in its metres. Many of the hymns are composed in the form of stanzas, called pragzitha (from gd, “ to sing ), consisting of two verses in the bfihati andsalobifihati metres; whence this book is usually known under the designation of Pragathas. The other metres met with in this book are likewise such as were evidently considered peculiarly adapted for singing, viz. the gdyatri (from gd, “ to sing ) and other chiefly octosyllabic metres. It is not yet clear how to account for these peculiarities; but further research may perhaps show either that the Kanvas were a family of udgatars, or chanters, or that, before the establishment of a common system of worship for the Brahmanical community, they were accustomed to carry on t'heir liturgical service exclusively by means of chants, instead of using the later form of mixed recitation and chant. One of the rishis of this family is called Pragatha Kanva; possibly this surname “ pragatha " may be an old, or local, synonym of udgatar, or perhaps of the chief chanter, the so-called Pfastotar, or preceptor. Another poet of this family is Medhatithi Kanva, who has likewise assigned to him twelve hymns in the first and largest groups of the first book. The ninth mandala, on the other hand, consists entirely of hymns (114) addressed to Soma, the deified juice of the so-called “ moon-plant ” (Sarcostemma viminale, or Asclepias acida), and ascribed to poets of different families. They are called pavamdni, “ purificational, " because they were to be recited by the hotar while the juice expressed from the soma plants was clarifying. The first sixty of these hymns are arranged strictly according to their length, ranging from ten down to four verses; but as to the remaining hymns no such principle of arrangement is observable, except perhaps in smaller groups of hymns. One might, therefore, feel inclined to look upon that first section as the body of soma hymns set apart, at the time of the first redaction of the Samhita, for the special purpose of being used as pavamdnyas, —the remaining hymns having been added at subsequent red actions. It would not, however, by any means follow that all, commentary, by M. Müller, containing 12 hymns to the Maruts or storm-gods (1869). These were reprinted, together with the remaining hymns to the Maruts, and those addressed to Rudra, Vayu and Vita, Vedic Hymns I. in S.B.E., vol.xxxii. (1891); where (vol. xlvi.) H. Oldenberg has also translated the hymns to Agni, in mandalas 1-5. A metrical English translation was published by R. H. T. Griffith (2 vols., Benares, 1896-1897). Complete German translations have been published, in verse, by H. Grassmann (1876-1877) and, in prose, with comm., A. Ludwig (1876 1888). Cf. also Kaegi, The Rigveda (Eng. trans. by Arrowsmith, Boston, 1886).


or even any, of the latter hymns were actually later productions, as they might previously have formed part of the family collections, or might have been overlooked when the hymns were first collected. Other mandalas (viz. i. viii. and x.) still contain four entire hymns addressed to Soma, consisting together of 58 verses, of which only a single one (x., I) is found in the Samaveda-samhita, as also some 28 isolated verses to Soma, and four hymns addressed to Soma in conjunction with some other deity, which are entirely unrepresented in that collection.

Mandala x. contains the same number of hymns (191) as the first, which it nearly equals in actual length. The hymns are ascribed to many rishis, of various families, some of whom appear already in the preceding mandalas. The traditional record is, however, less to be depended upon as regards this book, many names of gods and fictitious personages appearing in the list of its rishis. In the latter half of the book the hymns are clearly arranged according to the number of verses, in decreasing order-occasional exceptions to this rule being easily adjusted by the removal of a few apparently added verses. A simi ar arrangement seems also to suggest itself in other portions of the book. This mandala stands somewhat apart from the preceding books, both its language and the general character of many of its hymns betraying a more recent origin. In this respect it comes nearer to the level of the Atharvavedasamhita, with which it is otherwise closely connected. Of some 1350 Rik-verses found in the Atharvan, about 550, or rather more than 40%, occur in the tenth mandala. In the latter we meet with the same tendencies as in the Atharvan to metaphysical speculation and abstract conceptions of the deity on the one hand, and to superstitious practices on the other. But, although in its general appearance the tenth mandala is decidedly more modern than the other books, it contains not a few hymns which are little, if at all, inferior, both in respect of age and poetic quality, to the generality of Vedic hymns, being perhaps such as had escaped the attentions of the former collectors.

It has become the custom, after Roth's example, to call the Riksamhitfi. (as well as the Atharvan) an historical collection, as compared with the Samhitas put together for purely ritualistic urposes. And indeed, though the several family collections which make up the earlier mandalas may originally have served ritual ends, as the hymnals of certain clans or tribal confederacies, and although the Samhita itself, in its oldest form, may have been intended as a common prayer-book, so to speak, for the whole of the Bréihmanical community, it is certain that in the stage in which it has been finally handed down it includes a certain portion of hymn material (and even some secular poetry) which could never have been used for purposes of religious service. It may, therefore, be assumed that the Rik-samhita contains all of the nature of popular lyrics that was accessible to the collectors, or seemed to them worthy of being preserved. The question as to the exact period when the hymns were collected cannot be answered with any aproach to accuracy. For many reasons, however, which cannot be detailed here, scholars have come to fix on the year 1000 B.C. as an approximate date for the collection of the Vedic hymns. From that time every means that human ingenuity could suggest was adopted to secure the sacred texts against the risks connected with oral transmission. But, as there is abundant evidence to show that even then not only had the text of the hymns suffered corruption, but their language had become antiquated to a considerable extent, and was only partly understood, the period during which the great mass of the hymns were actually composed must have lain considerably farther back, and may very likely have extended over the earlier half of the second millenary, or from about 2000 to 1500 B.c.

As regards the people which raised for itself this imposing monument, the hymns exhibit it as settled in the regions watered by the mighty Sindhu (Indus), with its eastern and western tributaries, the land of the five rivers thus forming the central home of the Vedic people. But, while its advanced guard has already debouched upon the plains of the upper Ganga and Yamuna, those who bring up the rear are still found loitering far behind in the narrow glens of the Kubha (Cabul) and Gomati (Gomal). § cattered over this tract of land, in hamlets and villages, the Vedic Aryas are leading chiefly the life of herdsmen and husbandmen. The numerous clans and tribes, ruled over by chiefs and kings, have still constantly to vindicate their right to the land but lately wrung from an inferior race of darker hue; just as in these latter days their Aryan kinsmen in the Far West are ever on their guard against the fierce attacks of ghe dispossessed red-skin. Not infrequently, too, the light-coloured Aryas wage internecine war with one another-as when the Bharatas, with allied tribes of the Panjab, goaded on by the royal sage Visvamitra, invade the country of the Tritsu king Sudas, to be defeated in the “ ten kings' battle, " through the inspired power of the priestly singer Vasishtha. The priestly office has already become one of high social importance by the side of the political rulers, and to a large extent an hereditary profession; though it does not yet present the baneful features of an exclusive caste. The Aryan ousewife shares with her husband the daily toil and joy, the privilege of worshipping the national gods and even the triumphs of song craft, some of the finest hymns being attributed to female seers. The religious belief of the people consists in a system of natural symbolism, a worship of the elementary forces of nature, regarded as beings endowed with reason and power superior to those of man. In giving utterance to this simple belief, the priestly spokesman has, however, frequently worked into it his own speculative and mystic notions. Indra, the stout-hearted ruler of the cloud-region, receives by far the largest share of the devout attentions of the Vedic singer. His ever-renewed battle with the malicious demons of darkness and drought, for the recovery of the heavenly light and the rain-spending cows of the sky, forms an inexhaustible theme of spirited song. Next to him, in the affections of the people, stands Agni (ignis), the god of fire, invoked as the genial inmate of the Aryan household, and as the bearer of oblations, and mediator between gods and men. Indra and Agni are thus, as it were, the divine representatives of the king (or chief) and the priest of the Aryan community; and if, in the arrangement of the Samhita, the Brahmanical collectors gave precedence to Agni, it was but one of many avowals of their own hierarchical pretensions. Hence also the hymns to Indra are mostly followed, in the family collections, by those addressed to the Viéve Devah (the " all-gods ”) or to the Maruts, the warlike storm-gods and faithful companions of Indra, as the divine impersonations of the Aryan freemen, the -vié or clan. But, while Indra and Agni are undoubtedly the favourite figures of the Vedic pantheon, there is reason to believe that these gods had but lately supplanted another group of deities who play a less prominent part in the hymns, viz. Father Heaven (Dyaus Pitar, Zeifs -:ra-riyp, Jupiter); Varuna (probably uffpavés), the all-embracing (esp. nocturnal) heavens; Mitra (Zend. Mithra), the genial light of day; and Savitar, the quicken er, and Surya (fjékios), the vivifying sun.

Of the Brahmanas that were handed down in the schools of the Bahvrfichas (i.e. "possessed of many verses ”), as the followers of the'Rigveda are called, two have come down to us, viz. Bra, " those of the Aitareyins and the Kaushitakins. The mag” of Aitareya-brcihmanal and the Kaushitaki-2 (or Sdn- Régveda khdyana-) brzihmana evidently have for their groundwork ° ° the same stock of traditional exegetic matter. They differ, however, considerably as regards both the arrangement of this matter and their stylistic handling of it, with the exception of the numerous legends common to both, in which the discrepancy is comparatively slight. There is also a certain amount of material peculiar to each of them. The Kaushitaka is, upon the whole, far more concise in its st le and more systematic in its arrangement-features which woufd lead one to infer that it is probably the more modern work of thetwo. It consists of thirty chapters (adhy1iya); while the Aitareya has forty, divided into eight books (or pentads, panchakd), of five chapters each. The last ten adhyayas of the latter work are, however, clearly a later addition-though they must have already formed part of it at the time of Panini (c. 400 B.c.?), if, as seems probable, one of his grammatical sutras, regulating the formation of the names of Brahmanas, consisting of thirty and forty adhyayas, refers to these two works. In this last portion occurs the well-known legend (also found in the Sankhayana-Sutra, but not in the Kaushitaki-brahmana) of Sunahsepa, whom his father Ajigarta sells and offers to slay, the recital of which formed part of the inauguration of kings. While the Aitareya deals almost exclusively with the Soma sacrifice, the Kaushitaka, in its first six chapters, treats of the several kinds of haviryajia, or offerings of rice, milk, ghee, &c., whereupon follows the Soma sacrifice in this way, that chapters 7-10 contain the practical ceremonial and II-30 the recitations (éastfa) of the hotar. Sayana, in the introduction to his commentary on the work, ascribes the Aitareya to the sage Mahidasa Aitareya (Le. son of Itara), also mentioned elsewhere as a philosopher; and it seems likely enough that this person arranged the Brahmana and founded the school of the Aitareyins. Regarding the authorship of the sister work we have no information, except that the opinion of the sage Kaushitaki is frequently referred to in it as authoritative, and generally in opposition to the Paingya-the Brahmana, it would seem, of a rival school, the Paingins. Probably, therefore, it is just what one of the manuscripts calls it-the Brahmana of Sankhayana (composed) in accordance with the views of Kaushitaki.

Each of Qiese two Brahmanas is supplemented by a “forest book, " or Aranyaka. The Aitareydranyakai is not a uniform production. It consists of five books (éranyaka), three of which, the first and the last two, are of a liturgical nature, treating of the ceremony called mahdi/rata, or great vow. The last of these books, composed in Sutra form, is, however, doubtless of later origin, and is, indeed, ascribed by native authorities either to Saunaka or to Asvalayana. The second and third books, on the other hand, are purely speculative, and are also styled the B11hz'richa-brcihmana-upanishad. Again, the last four chapters of the second book are usually singled 1 Edited, with an English translation, by M. Haug (2 vols., Bombay, 1865). An edition in Roman transliteration, with extracts from)the commentary, has been published by Th. Aufrecht (Bonn, 1879

2 Edited by B. Lindner (]ena, 1887).

“Edited, with Sayana's commentary, by Rajendralala Mitra, in the Bibliotheca I 1-zdica (187 5-1876). The first three books have been translated by F. Max Muller in S.B.E. vol. i. A new edition of the work was published, with translation, by A. B. Keith (Oxford, 1909). out as the Aitareyopanisha.d,1 ascribed, like its Brahmana (and the first book), to Mahidasa Aitareya; and the third book is also referred to as the Samhitti-upamfshad. As regards the Kaushitakitiragzyokaf this work consists of fifteen adhyayas, the first two (treating of -the mahavrata ceremony) and the seventh and eighth of which correspond to the first, fifth, and third books of the Aitareyaranyaka respectively, whilst the four adhyayas usually inserted between them constitute the highly interesting Kaushitaki(brzihmana- upanishadf of which we possess two different recension's. The remaining portions (9-15) of the Aranyaka treat of the vital airs, the internal Agnihotra, &c., ending with the vamsa, or succession of teachers. Of Kalpa-siilras, or manuals of sacrificial Sams of ceremonial# comp0sed for the use of the hotar priest, Rigvedzh two different sets are in existence, the Asvalayana- and the Szinkhciyana-Mitra. Each of these works follows one of the two Brahmanas of the Rik as its chief authority, viz. the Aitareya and Kaushitaka respectively. Both consist of a Sraumand a Gfi/zya-szitra. Asvaliyana seems to have lived about the same time as Panini (? c. 400 B.C.)-his own teacher, Saunaka, who completed the Rik-pratiéiikhya, being probably intermediate between the great grammarian and Yaska, the author of the Nirukta. Saunaka himself is said to have been the author of a Srauta-sfitra (which was, however, more of the nature of a Brahmana) and to have destroyed it on seeing his pupil's work. A Grihya-sutra is still quoted under his name by later writers. The Asvalayana Srauta-sutra5 consists of twelve, the Grihya of four, adhyiiyas. Regarding Sankhayana still less is known; but he, too, was doubtless a comparatively modern writer, who, like Aévalayana, founded a new school of ritualists. Hence the Kaushitaki-brahmana, adopted (and perhaps improved) by him, alsQ goes under his name, just as the Aitareya is sometimes called Asvalayana-brahmana. The Sankhayana Srauta-sutra consists of eighteen adhyayas. The last two chapters of the work are, however, a later addition! while the two preceding chapters, on the contrary, present a comparatively archaic, brahmana-like appearance. The Grihya-sutra consists of six chapters, the last two of which are likewise later appendages. The Szimbavya Grihya-szitra, of which a single MS. is at present known, seems to be closely connected with the preceding work. Professor Buhler also refers to the Rigveda the Vdsishfhadh1rma§ ¢istrc,8 composed of mixed sfltras and couplets. A few works remain to be noticed, bearing chiefly on the textual form and traditionary records of the Rik-samhitil. In our remarks on the Vedangas, the Pratiskhyas have already been referred to as the chief repositories of siksha or Vedic phonetics. Among these works the Rik-prdti§ dkhya9 occupies the first place. The original composition of this important work is ascribed to the same Szikalya from whom the vulgate recension of the (Sakala) Samhita takes its name. He is also said to be the author of the existing Padapcilha (Le. the text-form in which each word is given unconnected with those that precede and follow it), which report may well be cieuited, since the pada-text was doubtless prepared with a view to an examination, such as is presented in the Pratisakhya, of the phonetic modifications undergone by words in their syntactic combination. In the Pratisakhya itself, S5.kalya's father (or Snkalya the elder) is also several times referred to as an authority on phonetics, though the .younger Sakalya is evidently regarded as having improved on his father's theories. Thus both father and son probably had a share in the formulation of the rules of 1

Edited and translated by Dr Roer, in the Bibl. Ind. The last chapter of the second book, not being commented upon by Sayana, is probably a later addition. .

2Trans1ated by A. B. Keith (1908), who has also published (as an appendix to his ed. of the Aitareyaranyaka) the text of adhy. 7-15; whilst W. F. Friedlander edited adhy. 1 and 2 (1900). Cf. Keith, ].R./ls. S. (1908), p. 363 sqq., where the date of the first and more original portion (adhy. 1-8) is tentatively fixed at 600»-550 B.c.

3 Text, commentary and translation published by E. B. Cowell, inlthe Bibl. Ind. Also a translation by F. Max Müller in S.B.E. vo . i.

(' Cf. A. Hillebrandt, “ Ritual-Litteratur, " in B12hler's Gruudriss 1897).

Both works have been published with the commentary of Sargya Ntirayana, by native scholars. in the Bibl. Ind. Also the text of the Grihya, with a German translation, by A. Stenzler. °See A. Weber's analysis, Ind. Studien, ii. 288 seq. The work was edited by Hillebrandt, in Bibl. Ind.

7Edited, with a German translation, by H. Oldenberg (Ind. Stud. vol. xv.), who also gives an account of the Sambavya Grihya. An English translation in S.B.E. vol. xxix. by the same scholar, who would assign the two s1itra works to Sarvajna § ankhayana, whilst the Brahmana (and Aranyaka) seem to him to have been imparted by Kahola Kaushitaki to Gunakhya Sankhayana. 3'I'ext with Krishnapandita's commentary, published at Benares; also critically edited by A. A. Fiihrer (Bombay, 1883); translation by G. Biihler in S.B.E. vol. xiv.

9 Edited, with a French translation, b A. Regnier, in the Journal Asiaiiquz (1856-1858); also, with a Glerman translation, by M. Müller (1869).

pronunciation and modification of Vedic sounds. The completion or final arrangement of the Rik-pratisakhya, in its present form, is ascribed to Saunaka, the reputed teacher of Asvalayana. Saunaka, however, is merely a family name (“descendant of Sunaka ), which is given even to the rishi Gritsamada, to whom nearly the whole 0f the second mandala of the Rik is attributed. How long after Sakalya this particular Saunaka lived we do not know; but some generations at all events would seem to lie between them, considering that in the meantime the Sakalas, owing doubtless to minor differences on phonetic points in the Samhita text, had split into several branches, to one of which, the Saisira (or Saisiriya) school, Baunaka belonged. While Sakalya is referred to both by Yaska and Panini, neither of these writers mentions Saunaka. It seems, nevertheless, likely, for several reasons, that Panini was acquainted with Saunaka's work, though the point has by no means been definitely settled. The Rik-pratisakhya is composed in mixed slokas, or couplets of various metres, a form of composition for which Saunaka seems to have had a special predilection. Besides the Pratiszikhya, and the Grihya-Sutra mentioned above, eight other works are ascribed to Saunaka, viz. the Bzihaddevatd, '° an account, in epic slokas, of the deities of the hymns, which supplies much valuable mythological information; the Rig-v1'dh<ina, “ a treatise, likewise in epic metre, on the magic effects of Vedic hymns and verses; the Pdda-vidhdna, a similar treatise, apparently no longer in existence; and five different indexes or catalogues (anukramani) of the rishis, metres, deities, sections (anuwika) and hymns of the Rigveda. It is, however, doubtful whether the existing version of the Brihaddevata is the original one; and the Rigvidhana would seem to be much more modern than § aunaka's time. As regards the Anukramanis, they seem all to have been composed in mixed slokas; but, with the exception of the Anuvikanukramani, they are only known from quotations, having been superseded by the Sarvénukramani, ” or complete index, of Kdtyfiyana. Both these indexes have been commented upon by Shadgurusishya, towards the end of the 12th century of our era.

B. Sdma-veda.—The term siiman, of uncertain derivation, denotes a solemn tune or melody to be sung or chanted to a rich or verse. The set chants (stotra) of the Soma sacrifice are as a rule Sam” performed in triplets, either actually consisting of three Veda, different verses, or of two verses which, by the repetition sammtd of certain parts, are made, as it were, to form three. The three verses are usually chanted to the same tune; but in certain cases two verses sung to the same tune had a different saman enclosed between them. One and the same saman or tune may thus be sung to many different verses; but, as in teaching and practising the tunes the same verse was invariably used for a certain tune, the term “ saman, " as well as the special technical names of samans, are not infrequently applied to the verses themselves with which they were ordinarily connected, just as one would quote the beginning of the text of an English hymn, when the tune usually sung to that hymn is meant. Eor a specimen of the way in which samans are sung, see Burnell, Arsheyabrdhmazza, p. xlv. seq.

The Indian chant somewhat resembles the Gregorian or Plain Chant.” Each saman is divided into five parts or phrases (prastdva, or prelude, &c.), the first four of which are distributed between the sféveral chanters, while the finale (nidhana) is sung in unison by all 0 them.

In accordance with the distinction between rich or text and sfiman or tune, the saman-hymnal consists of two parts, viz. the Sdmaveda-samhitd, or collection of texts (rich) used for making up saman-hymns, and the Gcina, or tune-books, song-books. The textual matter of the Samhita consists of somewhat under I6OO different verses, selected from the Rik-sarnhita, with the exception of some seventy-five verses, some of which have been taken from Khila hymns, whilst others which also occur in the Atharvan or Yajurveda, as well as such not otherwise found, may perhaps have formed part of some other recension of the Rik. The Sdmavedafsamhitdhf is divided into two chief parts, the p1Zr1/a-~(f1rst) and the utlara- (second) drchika. The second part contains the texts of the saman-hymns, arranged in the order in which they are actually re uired for the stotras or chants of the various Soma sacrifices. Tfie first part, on the other hand, contains the body of tune-verses, or verses used for practising the several samans or tunes upon-the tunes themselves being given in the Gnima-geya-grina (Le. songs to be sung in the village), the tune-book specially belonging to the Piirvarchika. Hence the latter includes all the first verses of those triplets of the second part which had special tunes peculiar to them, besides the texts of detached samans occasionally used outside the regular ceremonial, as well as such as were perhaps "Edited, with translation, by A. A. Macdonell (2 vols.), in the Harvard Or. series (1904).

“ Edited R. Meyer (Berlin, 1878).

12 Edited, vgith commentary, by A. A. Macdonell (Oxford, 1886). U Burnell, Arsheyabrdhmana, p. xli.

“Edited and translated by J. Stevenson (1843); a critical edition, with German translation and glossary, was published by Th. Benfey (1848); also an edition, with the Ganas and Sayana's commentary, by Satyavrata Samasrami, in the Bibl. Ind. in 5 vols.; and Eng. trans. by R. H. T. Griffith (Benares, 1893). no longer required but had been so used at one time or other. The verses of the Purvarchika are arranged on much the same plan as the family-books of the Rik-samhita, viz. in three sections containing the verses addressed to Agni, Indra and Soma (pavamdna) respectively-each section (consisting of one, three, and one adhyayas respectively) being again arranged according to the metres. Hence this part is also called Chhandas- (metre) drchika. Over and above this natural arrangement of the two archikas. there is a purely formal division of the texts into six and nine prapathakas respectively, each of which, in the first part, consists of ten decades (dasat) of verses. We have two recension's of the Sarrihita, belonging to the Ranayaniya and Kauthuma schools, the latter of which is but imperfectly known, but seems to have differed but slightly from the other. Besides the six prapathakas (or five adhyayas) of the Pfxrvarchika, some schools have an additional “ forest " chapter, called the Aram/aka-samhild, the tunes of which-along with others apparently intended for being chanted by anchorites-are partly contained in the Araqiya-gtina. Besides the two tune-books belonging to the Parvarchika, there are two others, the Uha-grind (“modification-songs ) and Uhya-gdna, which follow the order of the Uttararchika, giving the several samanhymns chanted at the Soma sacrifice, with the modifications the tunes undergo when applied to texts other than those for which they were originally composed. The Saman hymnal, as it has come down to us, has evidently passed through a long course of development. The practice of chanting probably goes back to very early times; but the question whether any of the tunes, as given in the Ganas, and which of them, can lay claim to an exceptionally high antiquity will perhaps never receive a satisfactory answer. The title of B rzihmana is bestowed by the Chhandogas, or foll0wers of the Samaveda, on a considerable number of treatises. In accordance with the statements of some later writers, their s'"""' number was usually fixed at eight; but within the last "fa" few years one new Brahmana has been recovered, While bmh' at least two others which are found quoted may yet be "“?'“' brought to light in India. The majority of the Samavedabrahmanas present, however, none of the characteristic features of other works of that class; but they are rather of the nature of satras and kindred treatises, with which they probably belong to the same period of literature. Moreover, the contents of these works-as might indeed be expected from the nature of the duties of the priests for whom they were intended-are of an extremely arid and technical character, though they all are doubtless of some importance, either for the textual criticism of the Sarphita or on account of the legendary and other information they supply. These works are as follows: (1) the Tdndymmahrl- (or Praudha-) brrihmagunl or “ great ” Brahmana-usually called Panchavimfa-brdhmana from its “consisting of twenty-five " adhyayas-which treats of the duties of the udgatars generally, and especially of the various kinds of chants; (2) the Shadvimtaf or “ twenty-sixth, ” being a supplement to the preceding work-its last chapter, which also bears the title of Adbhutafbrdhmana? or “ book of marvels, " is rather interesting, as it treats of all manner of portents and evil influences, which it teaches how to avert by certain rites and charms; (3) the Scimavidhrinaf analogous to the Rigvidhana, descanting on the' magic effects of the various samans; (4) the A rsheya-brdhmana, a mere catalogue of the technical names of the samans in the order of the Parvarchika, known in two different recension's; (5) the Devatcidhydya, which treats of the deities of the samans; (6) the Chhlindagya-bfdhmana, the last eight adhyayas (3-10) of which constitute the important Chhandogyopanishadf (7) the Samhitopamshad-bnihmana, treating of various subjects connected with chants; (8) the Vamfa-brzihmana, a mere list of the Samaveda teachers. To these works has to be added the Jaiminiya- or Talavakdm-brdhmana, which, though as yet only known by extracts! seems to stand much on a level with the Brahmanas of the Rik and Yaiurveda. A portion of it is the well-known Keria- (or Tala-vakzimupanishud] on the nature of Brahma, as the supreme of deities. If the Samaveda has thus its ample share of Brahmana-literature, though in part of a. somewhat questionable character, it is not less richly supplied with sfxtra-treatises, some of which prob-S":"" ably belong to the oldest works of that class. There are 1:5 nf; three Srauta-sitras, which attach themselves more or l'ess closely to the Panchavlmsa-brahmana: Masaka's Arsheyakalpa, which gives the beginnings of the samans in their sacrificial order, thus supplementing the Arsheya-brahmana, which enumerates their technical names; and the Srauta-satras of Ldpydyanas and Drdhydyana, of the Kauthuma and Ranayaniya schools respectively, which differ but little from each other, and form complete manuals of the duties of the udgatars. Another sutra, of an exegetic character, the Anupada-S1/Ztra, likewise follows the Panchavimsa, the difficult passages of which it explains. Besides these, there are a considerable number of slitras and kindred technical treatises bearing on the prosody and phonetics of the sama-texts. The more important of them art?-the Riktantraf' apparently intended to serve as a Pratisakhya of the Samaveda; the Niddna-s1Zt1a,1° a treatise on prosody; the Pushpa- or Phulla-Mitra, ascribed either to Gobhila or to Vararuchi, and treating of the phonetic modifications of the rich in the samans; and the Szimatantra, a treatise on chants of a ve technical nature. Further, two Grihya-.r1Ztras, belonging to the rgamaveda, are hitherto known, viz. the Drdhydyana-gffihya, ascribed to Khradira, and that of Gobhila 11 (who is also said to have composed a srautasfltra), with a supplement, entitled Karmapradipa, by Katyayana. To the Samaveda seems further to belong the Gautama-dharmaédstra, ” composed in sutras, and apparently the oldest existing compendium of Hindu law.

C. Yajur-veda.-This, the sacrificial Veda of the Adhvaryu priests, divides itself into an older and a younger branch, or, as they are usually called, the Black (kfishna) and the White ffukla) Yajurveda. Tradition ascribes the foundation of the Samhnas Yajurveda to the sage Vaisampayana. Of his disciples °fB“'“k three are specially named, viz. Katha, Kalapin and Yaska y'°j""'°d" Paingi, the last of whom again is stated to have Communicated the sacrificial science to Tittiri. How far this genealogy of teachers may be authentic cannot now be determined; but certain it is that in accordance therewith we have three old collections of Yajustexts, viz. the Kd;haka,13 the Kzilziigaka or Maitrdya;1iSamh1ftd,14 and the Taittiriya-samhitd.15 The athaka and Kalapaka are frequently mentioned together; and the author of the “great commentary ” on Panini once remarks that these works were taught in every village. The Kathas and Kalapas are often referred to under the collective name of Charakas, which apparently means “ wayfarers " or itinerant scholars; but according to a later writer (Hemachandra) Charaka is no other than Vaisampayana himself, after whom his followers would have been thus called. From the Kathas proper two or three schools seem early to have branched off, the Prachya- (eastern) Kathas and the Kapishthala-Kathas, the text-recension of the latter of whom has recently been discovered in the Kapishghala-katha-samhild, and probably also the Charayaniya-Kathas. The Kalapas also soon became subdivided into numerous different schools. Thus from one of KalaDin's immediate disciples, Haridru, the Haridraviyas took their origin, whose text-recension, the Hdridravika, is quoted together with the Kathaka as early as in Yaska's Nirukta; but we do not know whether it differed much from the original Kalapa texts. As regards the Taittiriya-samhita, that collection, too, in course of time gave rise to a number of different schools, the text handed down being that of the Apastambas; while the contents of another recension, that of the Atreyas, are known from their Anukramani, which has been preserved.

The four collections of old Yajus texts, so far known to us, while differing more or less considerably in arrangement and verbal points, have the main mass of their textual matter in common. This common matter consists of both sacrificial prayers (yajus) in verse and prose, and exegetic or illustrative prose portions (brahmana). A rominent feature of the old Yajus texts, as compared with the otger Vedas, is the constant intermixture of textual and exegetic portions. The Charakas and Taittiriyas thus do not recognize the distinction between Samhita and Brahmana in the sense of two separate collections of texts, but they have only a Samhita, or collection, which includes likewise the exegetic or Brahmana portions. The Taittiriyas seem at last to have been impressed with their want of a separate Brahmana and to have set about supplying the deficiency in rather an awkward fashion: instead of separating from each other the textual and exegetic portions of their Sanihita, they merely added to the latter a supplement (in three books), which shows the same mixed condition, and applied to it the title of Taittiriya-brdhmana” But, thouglfthe main'body of 1 Edited, with Sayana's commentary by Anandachandra Vedantavagisa, in the Bibl. Ind. (1869-1874).

2 Ed. ]. Vidyasagara (1881); also, with German translation, K. Klemm (1894).

5 A. Weber, “ Omina et Portenta, " Abhamilungen of Berlin Royal Academy of Sciences (1858).

4 The works enumerated under (3), (4), (5), (7). (8) have been edited by A. Burnell; (8) also previously by A. Weber, Ind. St. vol. iv.; whilst 7 was translated by Sten Konow (Halle, 1893). 5 Edited and translated by Dr Roer, Bibl. Ind.; also translated by M. Müller, S.B.E. vol. i., text, with German translation, by 0. v. Bohtlingk (1889).

° Given by Burnell (1878), and (with translation) by H. Oertel, J. Am. Or. S. vol. xvi. See also Whitney's account of the work, Proceedings ofAm. Or. Soc. (May 1883).

7 Transl. by F. M. Muller. S.B.E. vol. i.

8 Arsheyakalpa, ed. /V. Caland (1908); Latylayana-sfltra, with Agilisvamirrs commentary and the 1/21. ll. of the Drahyayana-sutra, 11

by Anandachandra Vedantavagisa, Bibl. Ind. (1872). 9 Ed. and trans., A. Burnell (Mangalore, 1879). 1° Two chapters published by A. Weber, Ind. St. vol. viii. Edited, with a commentary, by Chandrakanta Tarkalankara, Bibl. Ind. (1880); also ed. and trans. by F. Knauer (1884-1887); Eng. trans. by H. Oldenberg, S.B vol. xxx.

12 Edited by A. Stenzler; translated by G. Biihler, S.B.E. vol. ii. 13 Books I., II., ed. by L. v. Schroder (Leipzig, 1900, 1909). 1* Ed. by L. V. Schroder (Leipzig, 1881-1886). 1° With Sayana's commentary, by E. Roer, E. B. Cowell, &c., in Qiblztfnd.; also, in Roman character, by A. Weber, Ind. Stud. xi., xii.

}° Edited, with Sayana's commentary, by Rajendralala Mitra, Bzbl. Ind.; N. Godabole, Anand. Ser. (1898). this work is manifestly of a supplementary nature, a portion of it may perhaps be old, and may once have formed part of the Samhita, considering that the latter consists of seven ashtakas, instead of eight, as this term requires, and that certain essential parts of the ceremonial handled in the Brahmana are entirely wanting in the Samhita. Attached to this work is the T ailtiriya-dranyaka,1 in ten books, the first six of which are of a ritualistic nature, while of the remaining books the first three (7-9) form the T ailtiriyopanishadz (consisting of three parts, viz. the Sikshavalli or Samhitopanishad, and the Anandavalli and Bhriguvalli, also called together the V5.runiupanishad), and the last book forms the N arayaniya- (or Yajnikiupanishad. The Maitrdyani Samhitd, the identity of which with the original Kalapaka has been proved pretty conclusively by Dr L. v. Schroder, who attributes the change of name of the Kalapa-Maitrayaniyas to Buddhist influences, consists of four books, attached to which is the Jllaitri- (or Maitrliyagzi) upanishadf The Ktifhaka, on the other hand, consists of five parts, the last two of which, however, are perhaps later additions, containing merely the prayers of the hotar priest, and those used at the horse-sacrifice. There is, moreover, the beautiful, Katha- or Kdghaka-upanishad# which is also, and more usually, ascribed to the Atharvaveda, and which seems to show a decided leaning towards Sankhya-Yoga notions.

The defective arrangement of the Yajus texts was at last remedied by a different school of Adhvaryus, the Vajasaneyins. The reputed originator of this school and its text-recension is Ya'fia - 1

valkya Vajasaneya (son of Vajasani). The result of the $31 e rearrangement of the texts was a collection of sacrificial ved? mantras, the Vdjasaneyi-samhitci, and a Brahmana, the Salapalha. On account of the greater lucidity of this arrangement, the Vajasaneyins called their texts the White (or clear) Y ajurveda-the name of Black (or obscure) Yajus being for opposite reasons applied to the Charaka texts. Both the Samhita and Brahmana of the Vajasaneyins have come down to us in two different recension's, viz. those of the Mddhyandina and Kdnva schools; and we find besides a considerable number of quotations from a Vajasaneyaka, from which we cannot doubt that there must have been at least one other recension of the Satapatha-brahmana. The difference between the two extant recension's is, on the whole, but slight as regards the subject-matter; but in point of diction it is quite sufficient to make a comparison especially interesting from a philological point of view. Which of the two versions may be the more original cannot as yet be determined; but the phonetic and grammatical differences will probably have to be accounted for by a geographical separation of the two schools rather than by a difference of age. In several points of difference the Kanva recension agrees with the practice of the Rik-samhita, and there probably was some connexion between the Yajus school of Kanvas and the famous family of rishis of that name to which the eighth mandala of the Rik is attributed. The Vtijasaneyi-samhit6,5 consists of forty adhyayas, the first eighteen of which contain the formulas of the ordinary sacrifices. The last fifteen adhysiyas are doubtless a later addition-as may also be the case as regards the preceding seven chapters. The last adhyaya is commonly known under the title of Vajasaneyisamhita (or Isavasya-) upanishad.° Its object seems to be to point out the fruitlessness of mere works, and to insist on the necessity of man's acquiring a knowledge of the supreme spirit. The sacrificial texts of the Adhvaryus consist, in about equal parts, of verses (rich) and prose formulas (yajus). The majority of the former occur likewise in the Rik-sarnhita, from which they were doubtless extracted. Not infrequently, however, they show considerable discrepancies of reading, which may be explained partly from a difference of recension and partly as the result of the adaptation of these verses to their special sacrificial purpose. As regards the prose formulas, though only a few of them are actually referred to in the Rik, it is quite possible that many of them may be of high antiquity. The .§ atzz{>atha-brdhmana,7 or Brahma na of a hundred paths, derives its name from the fact of its consisting of IOO lectures (adhytiya), which are divided by the Madhyandinas into fourteen, by B"3"'""5"' the Kanvas into seventeen books (kinda). The first nine

, ;;;, 
”° books of the former, corresponding to the first eleven of

Veda the KE vas, 'and consisting of sixty adhyayas, form a kind of running commentary on the first eighteen books of the Vai.-Samhita; and it has been plausibly suggested by Professor Weber that this portion of the Brahmana may be referred to in the Mahibhashya on Pan. iv. 2, 60, where a Satapatha and 1 Ed. R. Mitra, Bibl. Ind.; H. N. Apte, Anand. Ser. (1898). 2 Trans. by F. M. Müller, S.B.E. vol. xv.

3 Text and translation published by E. B. Cowell, Bibi. Ind. Also trans. by F. M. Müller, S.B.E. vol. xv.

  • Text, commentary and translation published by E. R6er, Bibl.

Ind.; also translation by F. M. Müller, S.B.E. vol. xv., and others. Edited in the Madhyandina recension, with the commentary of Mahidhara, and the vu. ll or the Kanva text, by A. Weber (1849); trans. by R. H. T. Griffitn (Benares, 1899).

qTranslation by E. Roer, Bibi. Ind.; by F. M. Muller, S.B.E. vo . 1.

7Edited by A. Weber, who also translated the first chapter into German. English translation (5 vols.) by J. Eggeling, in S. B. E. a Shashti-patha (i.e. “ consisting of 60 paths ) are mentioned together as objects of study, and that consequently it may at one time have formed an independent work. This view is also supported by the circumstance that of the remaining five books (Io-14) of the Madhyandinas the third is called the middle one (madhyama); while the Kiinvas apply the same epithet to the middlemost of the five books (12-16) preceding their last one. This last book would thus seem to be treated by them as a second supplement, and not without reason, as it is of the Upanishad order, and bears the special title of Brihad- (great) dranyakaf the last six chapters of which are the Brihadaranyaka-upanishad,9 the most important of all Upanishads. Except in books 6-I0 (M.), which treat of the construction of fire-altars, and recognize the sage Sandilya as their chief authority, Y1ijf1avalkya's opinion is frequently referred to in the Satapatha as authoritative. This is especially the case in the later books, part of the Brihad-5ranyaka being even called Yajfiavalkiya-kinda. As regards the age of the Satapatha, the probability is that the main body of the work is considerably older than the time of Panini, but that some of its latter parts were considered by P§ .nini's critic Katyayana to be of about the same age as, or not much older than, Panini. Even those portions had probably been long in existence before they obtained recognition as part of the canon of the White Yajus. The contemptuous manner in which the doctrines of the Charakaadhvaryus are repeatedly animadverted upon in the Satapatha betrays not a little of the odium theologicum on the part of the divines of the Vajasaneyins towards their brethren of the older schools. Nor was their animosity confined to mere literary warfare, but they seem to have striven by every means to gain ascendancy over their rivals. The consolidation of the Brahmanical hierarch and the institution of a common system of ritual worship, which called forth the liturgical Vedic collections, were doubtless consummated in the so-called Madhya-desa, or “ midland, " lying between the Sarasvati and the confluence of the Yamuna and Ganga; and more especially in its western part, the Kuru-kshetra, or land of the Kurus, with the adjoining territory of the Panchalas, betw en the Yamuni and Ganga. From thence the original schools of;Vaidik ritualism gradually extended their sphere over the adjacent parts. The Charakas seem for a long time to have held sway in the western and north-western regions; while the Taittiriyas in course of time spread over the whole of the peninsula south of the Narmada (Nerbudda), where their ritual has remained pre-eminently the object of study till comparatively recent times. The Vajasaneyins, on the other hand, having first gained a footing in the lands on the lower Ganges, chiefly, it would seem, through the patronage of King Ianaka of Videha, thence gradually worked their way westwards, and eventually succeeded in superseding the older schools north of the Vindhya, with the exception of some isolated places where even now families of Brahmans are met with which profess to follow the old Samhitas. In Kalpa-siltfas the Black Yajurveda is particularly rich; but, owing to the circumstances just indicated, they are almost entirely confined to the Taittiriya school# The only Srauta-sfxtra of a Charaka school which has hitherto been recovered is S"t"“ of that of the Manavas, a subdivision of the Maitrayaniyas. yay" The Mdnava-srauta-siitram seems to consist of eleven Ve 8 books, the first nine of which treat of the sacrificial ritual, while the tenth contains the § ulva-sutra; and the eleventh is made up of a number of supplements (pari-fishpa). The Mainava-gfihya-szitrall is likewise in existence; but so far nothing is known, save one or two quotations, of a .Mdnava-dharma-Mitra, the discovery of which might be expected to solve some important questions regarding the development of Indian law. Of sutra-works belonging to the Kathas, a single treatise, the (Chtirciyrzniya-) Kdfhaka-gffihya-s1Ztm, is known; while Dr jolly considers the Vishnu-smriti, '2a compendium of law, composed in mixed siltras and slokas, to be nothing but a Vaishnava recast of the Kathaka-dharma-sutra, which, in its original form, seems no longer to exist. As regards the Taittiriyas, the Kalpaslitra most widely accepted among them was that of Apastamba, to whose school, as we have seen, was also due our existing recension of the Taittiriya-samhitfi. The A pastamba-kalpa-szilra consists of thirty pména (questions); the first twenty-five of these constitute the grauta-s1itra;1i' 26 and 27 the Grihya-sf1tra;14 28 and 29 the Dharma-s1itra;15 and the last the Sulva-Sutra. Professor Biihler has tried to fix the date of this work somewhere between the 5th and 3rd centuries B.C.; but it can hardly yet be considered as definitely settled. Considerably more ancient than this work are the 8

lation, published by E. Roer, Bibi. Ind.

“Trans by F. M. Muller, S.B.E. vol. xv., and others. 1° See P. v. Bradke, Z.D.M.G. vol. xxxvi. A MS. of a portion of the Erauta-slitra, with the commentary of the famous Mimamsist Kumarila, has been photo-lithographed by the India Ofifice, under Goldstiicker's supervision.

11 Edited by F. Knauer (Leipzig, 1897).

12 Edited and translated by I. ]olly.

13 Edited by R. Garbe, in Bibl. Ind.-24

Ed. M.Winternitz (Vienna, 1887); trans. H. Oldenberg, S.B.E. vo . xxx.

5 G. Biihler has published the text with extracts from Haradatta's commentary, Bombay Sansk. Ser.; also a trans. in S.B.E. A

The text, with § ankara's commentary, and an English trans Baudhéyana-kalpa-s12tra,1 which consists of the same principal divisions, and the Bhdradvdja-Mitra, of which, however, only a few portions have as yet been discovered. The Hiranyakefi-s1Ztra,2 which is more modern than that of Apastamba, from which it differs but little, is likewise fragmentary, as is also the Vaikhanasa-sutra;3 while several other Kalpa-sutras, especially that of Laugakshi, are found quoted. The recognized compendium of the White Yajus ritual is the Srauta-szitra of Kr'1ty5.yana,4 in twenty-six adhyayas. This work is supplemented by a large number of secondary treatises, likewise attributed to Katyiyana, among which may be mentioned the Champa-vy12ha,5 a statistical account of the Vedic schools, which unfortunately has come down to us in a very unsatisfactory state of preservation. A manual of domestic rites, closely connected with Kityayanas work, is the Kdtiya-gffihya-s1Ztm, '* ascribed to Paraskara. To Katyayana we further owe the Vzijasaneybprtitifdkhya] and a catalogue (anukramani) of the White Yajus texts. As regards the former work, it is still doubtful whether (with Weber) we have to consider it as older than Panini, or whether (with Goldstiicker and M. Muller) we are to identify its author with P§ .nini's critic. The only existing Pratisakhyas o the Black Yajus belongs to the Taittiriyas. Its author is unknown, and it confines itself entiilely to the Taittiriya-samhiti, to the exclusion of the Brahmana and Ara nyaka.

D. Atharva—veda.-The Atharvan was the latest of Vedic collections to be recognized as parlt of the saiciied canon. That is a so the youngest e a is prove y its anguage, w ich xgzfva both from a lexical and a grammatical point of view, gamut- marks an intermediate Stage between the main body of ° 8' the Rik and the Brahmana period. In regard also to the nature of its contents, and the spirit which pervades them, this Vedic collection occupies a position apart from the others., Whilst the older Vedas seem clearly to reflect the recognized religious notions and practices of the upper, and so to speak, respectable classes of the Aryan tribes, as jealously watched over by a priesthood deeply interested in the undiminished maintenance of the traditional observances, the fourth Veda, on the other hand, deals mainly with all manner of superstitious practices such as have at all times found a fertile soil in the lower strata of primitive and less advanced peoples, and are even apt, below the surface, to maintain their tenacious hold on the popular mind in comparatively civilized communities. Though the constant intermingling with the aboriginal tribes may well be believed to have exercised a deteriorating influence on the Vedic people in this respect, it can scarcely be doubted that superstitious practices of the kind revealed by the Atharvan and the tenth book of the Rik must at all times have obtained amongst the Aryan people, and that they only came to the surface when the received the stamp of recognized forms of popular belief by the admission of these collections of spells and incantations into the sacred canon. If in this phase of superstitious belief the old gods still find a place, their character has visibly changed so as to be more in accordance with those mystic rites and magic performances and the part they are called upon to play in them, as the promoters of the votary's cabalistic practices and the averters of the malicious designs of mortal enemies and the demoniac influences to' which he would ascribe his fears and failures as well as his bodily ailments. The fourth Veda may thus be said to supplement in 3 remarkable manner the picture of the domestic life of the Vedic Aryan as presented in the Grihya-sutras or house-rules; for whilst these deal only with the orderly aspects of the daily duties and periodic observances in the life of the respectable householder, the Atharvaveda allows us a deep insight into “ the obscurer relations and emotions of human life ”; and, it may with truth be said that “ the literary diligence of the Hindus has in this instance preserved a document of riceless value for the institutional history of early India as well as fior the ethnological history of the human race ” (M. Bloomfield). It is worthy of note that the Atharvaveda is practically unknown in the south of India?

This body of spells and hymns is traditionally associated with two old mythic priestly families, the Atharvans and An iras, their names, in the plural, serving either singly or combined § Athawsn 1The Sulva-sutra has been published, with the commentary of Kapardisvamin, and a translation by G. Thibaut, in the Benares Pandit (1875). The Dharma-sutra has been edited by E, Hultzsch (Leipzig, 1884), and translated by G. Buhler, S.B.E. xiv. " The H. Grihya-sutra, ed. ]. Kirste (Vienna, 1889); trans. H. Oldenberg, S.B.E. vol. xxx.

“An account of the Vaikh. Dharmasutra given by T. Bloch (Vienna, 1896).

Edited by A. Weber, 1858.

5 Weber, Ind. Stud. iii.

° Text and German translation by A. Stenzler.

7 Edited, with Uvata's commentary, and a German translation, by A. Weber, Ind. Stud. iv.; another ed. in Benares Sansk. Ser. (1888). “The work has been published by W. D. Whitney, with a trans. lation and a commentary by an unknown author, called Tribhashyaratna, Le. “ jewel of the three commentaries, " it being founded on threq older commentaries by Vararuchi (? Katyéyana), Mahisheya and Atreya.

°A. Burnell, Classif. Index of Tanjore Sansk. MSS. p. 37. girasas) as the oldest appellation of the collection. The two families or classes of priests are by tradition connected with the service of the sacred fire; but whilst the Atharvans seem to have devoted themselves to the auspicious as ects of the fire-cult and the performance of propitiatory rites, the Angiras, on the other hand, are represented as having been mainly engaged in the uncanny practices of sorcery and exorcism. Instead of the Atharvans, another mythic family, the Bhrigus, are similarly connected with the Angiras (Bhrigvangirasas) as the depositories of this mystic science. In course of time the lore of the Atharvans came also to have applied to it the title of Brahmaveda; a designation which was apparently meant to be understood both in the sense of the Veda of the Brahman priest or superintendent of the sacrifice, and in that of the lore of the Brahma or sacred (magic) word, and the supreme deity it is supposed to embody. The current text of the Atharr1a-samhit¢i1°apparently the recension of the Saunaka school-consists of some 750 different pieces, about five-sixths of which is in various metres, the remaining portion being in prose. The whole mass is divided into twenty books. The principle of distribution is for the most part a merely formal one, in books i.-xiii. pieces of the same or about the same number of verses being placed together in the same book. The next five books, xiv.-xviii., have each its own special subject: xiv. treats of marriage and sexual union; xv., in prose, of the Vratya, or religious vagrant; xvi. consists chiefly of prose formulas of conjuration; xvii. of a lengthy mystic hymn; and xviii. contains all that relates to death and funeral rites. Of the last two books no account is taken in the Atharva-pratisakhya, 'and they indeed stand clearly in the relation of supplements to the original collection. The nineteenth book evidently was the result of a subsequent gleaning of pieces similar to those of the earlier books, which had probably escaped the collectors' attention; while the last book, consisting almost entirely of hymns to Indra, taken from the Riksamhita, is nothing more than a liturgical manual of recitations and chants required at the Soma sacrifice; its onl original portion being the, ten so-called kuntzipa hymns (127-136)/Z consisting partly of laudatory recitals of generous patrons of sacrificial priests and partly of riddles and didactic subjects.

The Atharvan has come down to us in a much less satisfactory state of preservation than any of the other Samhitas, and its interpretation, which offers considerable difficulties on account of numerous popular and out-of-the-way expressions, has so far received comparatively little aid from native sources. Less help, in this respect, than might have been expected, is afforded by a recently published commentary professing to have been composed by Sayana Acharya; serious doubts have indeed been thrown on the authenticity of its ascription to the famous Vedic exegetic. Of very considerable importance, on the other hand, was the discovery in Kashmir of a second recension of the Atharva-sarnhitai, contained in a single birch-bark MS., written in the Sarada character, and lately made available by an excellent chromo-photographic reproduction. This new recension, ” ascribed in the colophons of the MS. to the Paippalada school, consists likewise of twenty books (kinda), but both in textual matter and in its arrangement it differs very much from the current text. A considerable portion of the latter, including the whole of the eighteenth book, is wanting; while the hymns of the nineteenth book are for the most part found also in this text, though not as a separate book, but scattered over the whole collection. The twentieth book is wanting, with the exception of a few of the verses not taken from the Rik. As a set-off tothese shortcomings the new version offers, however, a good deal of fresh matter, amounting to about one-sixth of the whole. From the Mahabhashya and other works quoting as the beginning of the Atharva-samhita a verse that coincides with the first verse of the sixth hymn of the current text, it has long been known that at least one other recension must have existed; -but the first leaf of the Kashmir MS. having been lost, it cannot be determined whether the new recension (as seems all but certain) corresponds to the one referred to in those works.

The only Brahmana of the Atharvan, the Gopatha-brdhmana, " is doubtless one of the most modern and least important works of its class. It consists of two parts, the first of which Au contains cosmogonic speculations, interspersed with “Va” legends, mostly adapted from other Brahmanas, and Vega general instructions on religious duties and observances; bf" man while the second part treats, in a very desultory manner, of various points of the sacrificial ceremonial.

1° Edited by Professors Roth and Whitney (1856); with Sayana's commentary, by Shankar P. Pandit (4 vols., Bombay, 1895-1898). Index verborum, by Whitney, in J. Am. Or. S. vol. xii., Eng. trans. by R. H. T. Griffith (in verse) (2 vols., Benares, 1897); by W. D. Whitney (with a critical and exegetical commentary), revlsed and edited by Ch. R. Lanman (2 vols., Harvard Or. Ser., 1905); and (with some omissions) by M. Bloomfield, S.B.E. vol. xlii.; cf. also Bloomfield, “ The Atharvaveda, " in B11hler'sEncycl. (1899). 11 The first account of a copy of it was given by Professor R. v. Roth, in his academic dissertation, “ Der Atharvaveda in Kaschmir ” (1875). The reproduction on 544 plates, edited by M. Bloomfield and R. Garbe (Baltimore, 1901).

12 Edited in the Bibl. Ind. by Rajendralala Mitra. The Kalpa-siitras belonging to this Veda comprise both a manual of érauta rites, the Vaiitzina-s12tra, ' and a manual of domestic rites, the Kau§ ika-siitra? The latter treatise is not only the “:'"""" more interesting of th e two, but also the more ancient, Yet” ' being actually quoted in the other. The teacher Kausika sa ras' is repeatedly referred to in the work on points of ceremonial doctrine. Connected with this Sutra are upwards of seventy Partéjshtax, ” or supplementary treatises, mostlty in metrical form, on various subjects bearing on the performance o grihya rites. The I st sutrawork to be noticed in connexion with this Veda is the biitunakiyzi Chaturadhyayikaf being a Pratisakhya of the Atharva-samhita, so called from its consisting of four lectures (adhyaya). Although Saunaka can hardly be credited with being the actual author of the work, considering that his opinion is rejected in the only rule where his name appears, there is no reason to doubt that it chiefly embodies the phonetic theories of that teacher, which were afterwards perfected by members of his school. Whether this Siiunaka is identical with the writer of that name to whom the final redaction of the 'Sakalapratisakhya of the Rik is ascribed is not kgown; but it is worthy of note that on at least two points where akalya is quoted by Panini, the Chaturadhygyika seems to be referred to rather than the Rik-pratisakhya. aunaka is quoted once in the Vajasaneyi-pratisakhya; and it is possible that Katyayana had the Chaturadhyayika in view, though is reference does not quite tally with the respective rule of that work.

Another class of writings already alluded to as traditionally connected with the Atharvaveda are the numerous Upantshadss U aah which do not specially attach themselves to one or other “fads of the Sarr1hitas or Brahmanas of the other Vedas. The Atharvana-upanlshads, mostly composed in slokas, may be roughly divided into two classes, viz. those of a purely speculative or general pantheistic character, treating chiefly of the nature of the supreme spirit, and the means of attaining to union therewith, and those of a sectarian tendenc . Of the former category, a limited number-such as the Praéna, l/Iiiindaka, and Manqlukya-Upanishads —have probably to be assigned to the later period of Vedic literature; whilst the others presuppose more or less distinctly the existence of some fully developed system of philosophy, especially the Vedanta or the Yoga. The sectarian Upanishads, on the other hand identifying the supreme spirit either with one of the forms of Vishnu (such as the Narayana, Nrisirnga-tapaniya, Rama-tapaniya, Gopalatapaniya Upanishads), or with iva (e.g. the Rudropanishad), or with some other deity-belong to post-Vedic times.

2. Tm; CLASSICAL Pmuoo

The Classical Literature of India is almost entirely a product of artificial growth, in the sense that its vehicle was not the language of the general body of the people, but of a small and educated class. It would scarcely be possible, even approximately, to fix the time when the literary idiom ceased to be understood by the common people. We only know that in the 3rd century B.C. there existed several dialects in different parts of northern India which differed considerably from the Sanskrit; and Buddhist tradition states that Gautama Sakyamuni himself, in the 6th century B.C., used the local dialect of Magadha (Behar) for preaching his new doctrine. Not unlikely, indeed, popular dialects, differing perhaps but slightly from one another, may have existed as early as the time of the Vedic hymns, when the Indo-Aryans, divided into clans and tribes, occupied the Land of the Seven Rivers; but such dialects must have sprung up after the extension of the Aryan sway and language over the whole breadth of northern India. But there is no reason why, even with the existence of local dialects, the literary language should not have kept in touch with the people in India, as elsewhere, save for the fact that from a certain time that language remained altogether stationary, allowing the vernacular dialects more and more to diverge from it. Although linguistic research had been successfully carried on in India for centuries, the actual grammatical fixation of Sanskrit seems to have taken place about contemporaneously with the first spread of Buddhism; and 1 Text and a German translation published by R. Garbe (1878); German trans. by W. Caland (1910).

2 This difficult treatise has been published with extracts from commentaries by Professor Bloomfield. Two sections of it had been printed and translated by A. Weber, " Omina et Portenta " (1859)-

“These tracts have been edited by G. M. Bolling and J. v. Negelein, part i. (1909).

Edited and translated by W. D. Whitney.

5 For a full list of existing translations of and essays on the U anishads, see lntrod. to Max Müller's “ Upanishads, " S.B.E. i. cf also P. Deussen, Sechztg Upanishads (1897). indeed that popular religious movement undoubtedly exercised a. powerful influence on the linguistic development of India. A. Poetical Literature.

r. Epic Poems.-The Hindus, like the Greeks, possess two great national epics, the M ahcibharata and the Rzimayana. The M Mahabharata Le. “ the great (poem or tale) of the Bharatas, ” is not so much a uniform epic poem as Zgfmnm, a miscellaneous collection of poetry, consisting of a. ep, cs heterogeneous mass of legendary and didactic matter, worked into and round a central heroic narrative. The authorship of this work is aptly attributed to Vyasa, “ the arranger, ” the personification of Indian diaskeuasis. Only the bare outline of the leading story can here be given.

In the royal line of Hastinapura (the ancient Delhi)-claiming descent from the moon, and hence called the Lunar race (somavamsa), and counting among its ancestors King Bharata, after whom India is called Bharata-varsha (land of the Bharatas)-the succession lay between two brothers, when Dhritarashtra, the elder, being blind, had to make way for his brother Pandu. After a time the latter retired to the forest to pass the remainder of his life in hunting; and Dhritarashtra assumed the government, assisted by his uncle Bhishma, the Nestor of the poem. After some years Pandu died, leaving five sons, viz. Yudhishthira, Bhirna and Arjuna by his chief wife Kunti, and the twins Nakula and Sahadeva by Madri. The latter having burnt herself along with her dead husband, Kunti returned with the five princes to Hastinapura, and was well received by the king, who offered to have his nephews brought up together with his own sons, of whom he had a' hundred, Duryodhana being the eldest. From their reat-grandfather Kuru both families are called Kaurawas; but for distinction that name is more usually applied to the sons of Dhritarashtra, while their cousins, as the younger line, are named, after their father, Pdngtavas. The rivalry and varying fortunes of these two houses form the main plot of the great epopee. The Pandu princes soon proved themselves eatly superior to their cousins; and Yudhishthira, the eldest ogr them all, was to be appointed heir-apparent. But, by his son's advice, the king, good-natured but weak, induced his nephews for a time to retire from court and reside at a house where the unscrupulous Duryodhana meant to destro them. ' They escaped, however, and passed some time in the fidrest with their mother. Here Draupadi, daughter of King Drupada of Panchala, won by Arjuna in open contest, became the wife of the five brothers. On that occasion they also met their cousin, Kunti's nephew, the famous Yadava prince Krishna of Dvaraka, who ever afterwards remained their faithful friend and confidential adviser. Dhritarashtra now resolved to divide the kingdom between the two houses; whereupon the Pandavas built for themselves the city of Indraprastha (on the site of the modern Delhi). After a time of great prosperity, Yudhishthira, in a game of dice, lost everything to Duryodhana, when it was settled that the Pandavas should retire to the forest for twelve years, but should afterwards be restored to their kingdom if they succeeded in passing an additional year in disguise, without being recognized by any one. During their forest-life they met with many adventures, among which may be mentioned their encounter with King Iayadratha of Chedi, who had carried off Draupadi from their hermitage. After the twelfth year had expired they leave the forest, and, assuming various disguises, take service at the court of King Virata of Matsya. Here all goes well for a time till the queen's brother Kichaka, a great warrior and commander of the royal forces, falls in love with Draupadi, and is slain by Bhima. The Kauravas, profiting by Kichaka's death, now invade the Matsyan kingdom, when the Pandavas side with King Virata, and there ensues, on the held of Kurukshetra, during eighteen days, a series of fierce battles, ending in the annihilation of the Kauravas. Yudhishthira now at last becomes yuva-raja, and eventually king-Dhritarashtra having resigned and retired with his wife and Kunti to the forest, where they soon after perish in a conflagration. Learning also the death of Krishna, Yudhishthira himself at last becomes tired of life and resigns his crown; and the five princes, with their faithful wife, and a dog that joins them, set out' for Mount Meru, to seek admission to lndra's heaven. On the way one by one drops oii, till Yudhishthira alone, with the dog, reaches the gate of heaven; but, the dog being refused admittance, the king declines entering ° Three complete Indian editions, the handiest in 4 vols., including the Harivamsa (Calcutt, 1834-1839); a Bombay edition, with Nilakantha's Commentary (1863); and a third, in Telugu characters, containing the Southern recension (Madras, 1855-1860). Another Southern edition, in Nagari, is now appearing at Bombay, edited by Krishnacharya and Vyasacharya of Kumbakonam. An English translation has been brought out at Calcutta by Pratap Chundra Roy (1883-1894); and another by M. N. Dutt (5 vols., Calcutta, 1896); whilst numerous e isodes have been printed and translated by European scholars. Fibr critical analysis of this epic consult A. Holtzmann, Das Mahabharata (4 vols., Kiel, 1892-1895); W. Hopkins, The Great Epic of India (New York, 1902). without it, when the dog turns out to be no other than the god of Justice himself, having assumed that form to test Yudhisht;hira's constancy. But, Finding neither his wife nor his brothers in heaven, and being told that they are in the nether world to expiate their sins, the king insists on sharing their fate, when this, too, proves a trial, and they are all reunited to enjoy perpetual bliss. The complete work consists of upwards of 100,000 couplet sits contents thus being nearly eight times the bulk of the Iliad and Odyssey combined. It is divided into eighteen books, and a supplement, entitled Harivamsa, or genealogy of the god Hari (Krishna-Vishnu). In the introduction, Vyasa, being about to dictate the poem, is made to say (i. 81) that so far he and some of his disciples knew 8800 couplets; and farther on (i. 101) he is said to have composed the collection relating to the Bharatas (bhdrata-samhitd), and called the Bhdratam, which, not including the episodes, consisted of 24,000 slokas. Now, as a matter of fact, the portion relating to the feud of the rival houses constitutes somewhere between a fourth and a fifth of the Work; and it is by no means improbable that this portion once formed a separate poem, called the Bhdrata. But, whether the former statement is to be understood as implying the existence, at a still earlier time, of a yet shorter version of about one-third of the present extent of the leading narrative, cannot now be determined. While some of the episodes are so loosely connected with the story as to be readily severed from it, others are so closely interwoven with it that their removal would seriously injure the very texture of the work. This, however, only shows that the original poem mpst have undergone some kind of revision, or perhaps repeated" revisions. That such has indeed taken place, at the hand of Brahmans, for sectarian and caste purposes, cannot be doubted. According to Lassen's opinion, ' which has been very generally accepted by scholars, the main story of the poem would be based on historical events, viz. on afdestructive war waged between the two neighbouring peoples of the Kurus and Panchalas, who occupied the western and eastern parts of the Madhyadesa (or “ middle land ” between the' Ganges and Iumna) respectively, and ending in the overthrow of the Kuru dynasty. On the original accounts of these events-~perhaps handed down in the form of lays or sagas-the Pandava element would subsequently have been grafted as calculated to promote the class interests of the Brahmanical revisers. ~It is certainly a strange coincidence that the five Pandava princes should have taken to wife the daughter of the king of the Panchalas, and thus have linked their fortunes to a people which is represented, in accordance with its name, to have consisted of five (pancha) tribes.

The earliest direct information regarding the existence of epic poetry in India is contained in a passage of Dion Chrysostom (c. A.D. 80), according to which “ even among the Indians, they say, Homer's poetry is sung, having been translated by them into their own dialect and tongue ”; and “ the Indians are well acquainted with the sufferings of Priam, the lamentations and wails of Andromache and Hecuba, and the prowess of Achilles and Hector.” Now, although these allusions would suit either poem, they seem to correspond best to certain incidents in the . M ahtibhdrata, especially as no direct mention is made of a warlike expedition to a remote island for the rescue of an abducted woman, the resemblance of which to the Trojan expedition would naturally have struck a Greek becoming acquainted with the general outline of the Rdmciyana. Whence Dion derived his information is not known; but as many leading names of the Mahabharata and even the name of the poem itself 2 are mentioned in Panini's grammatical rules, not only must the Bharata legend have been current in his time (P c. 400 B.C.), but most probably it existed already in poetical form, as undoubtedly it did at the time of Patanjali, the author of the “ great commentary ” on Panini (c. 150 B.C.). The great epic is also mentioned, both as Bhdfata and M ahdbhzirata, in the Gfihya-.mira of Asvalayana, whom Lassen supposes to have lived about 350 B.C. Nevertheless it must remain uncertain whether the poem was then already in the form in which we 1l, assen, Indische Allertumskunde, i. 733 sqq. 2 Viz. as an adj., apparently with “ war " or “ poem " understood. now have it, at least as far as the leading story and perhaps some of the episodes are concerned, a large portion of the episodical matter being clearly of later origin. It cannot, however, be doubted that long before that time heroic song had been diligently cultivated in India at the courts of princes and among Kshatriyas, the knightly order, generally. In the M ahdbhdrata itself the transmission of epic legend is in some way connected with the Siltas, a social class which, in the caste system, is defined as resulting from the union of Kshatriya men with Brahmana Women, and which supplied the office of charioteers and heralds, as well as (along with the Magadhas) that of professional minstrels. Be this as it may, there is reason to believe that, as Hellas had her douloi who sang the Khéa 6.1/6p&>v, and Iceland her skalds who recited favourite sagas, so India had from olden times her professional bards, who delighted to sing the praises of kings and inspire the knights with warlike feelings. If in this way a stock of heroic poetry had gradually accumulated which reflected an earlier state of society and manners, we can well understand why, after the Brahmanical order of things had been definitely established, the priests should have deemed it desirable to subject these traditional memorials of Kshatriya chivalry and prestige to their own censorship, and adapt them to their own canons of religious and civil law. Such a revision would doubtless require considerable skill and tact; and if in the present version of the work much remains that seems contrary to the Brahmanical code and pretensions-e.g. the polyandric union of Draupadi and the Pandu princes-the reason probably is that such features were too firmly rooted in the popular tradition to be readily eliminated; and all the revisers could do was to explain them away as best they could. Thus Draupadi's abnormal position is actually accounted for in five different ways, one of these representing it as an act of duty and filial obedience on the part of Arjuna who, on bringing home his fair' prize and announcing it to his mother, is told by her, before seeing what it is, to share it with his brothers. Nay, it has even been seriously argued that the Brahmanical editors have completely changed the traditional relations of the leading characters of the story. For, although the Pandavas and their cousin 'Krishna are constantly extolled as models of virtue and goodness, while the Kauravas and their friend Karna-a son of the sun-god, borne by Kunti before her marriage with Pandu, and brought up secretly as the son of a Sita-are decried as monsters of depravity, these estimates of the heroes' characters are not infrequently belied by their actions-especially the honest Karna and the brave Duryodhana (i.e. “ the bad fighter, ” but formerly called Suyodhana, “ the good fighter ”) contrasting not unfavourably with the wily Krishna and the cautious and somewhat effeminate Yudhishthira. These considerations, coupled with certain peculiarities on the part of the Kauravas, apparently suggestive of an original connexion of the latter with Buddhist institutions, have led Dr Holtzmann to devise an ingenious theory, viz. that the traditional stock of legends was first worked up into a connected narrative by some Buddhist poet-most likely at the time of the emperor Asoka (c. 2 50 B.C.), whom the Kaurava hero Suyodhana might even seem to have been intended to represent-and that this poem, showing a decided predilection for the Kuru party as the representatives of Buddhist principles, was afterwards revised in a contrary sense, at the time of the Brahmanical reaction, by votaries of Vishnu, when the Buddhist features were generally modified into Saivite tendencies, and prominence was given to the divine nature of Krishna, as an incarnation of Vishnu. As this theory would, however, seem to involve the Brahmanical revision of the poem having taken place subsequent to the decline of Buddhist predominance, it would shift the completion of the work to a considerably later date than would be consistent with other evidence. From inscriptions we know that by the end of the 5th century A.D. the Mahabharata was appealed to as an authority on matters of law, and that its extent was practically what it now is, including its supplement, the Harivamsa. Indeed, everything seems to point to the probability of the work having been complete by about A.D. zoo. But, whilst Bharata and Kuru heroic lays may, and probably do, go back to a much earlier age, it seems hardly possible to assume that the Pandava epic in its present form can have been composed before the Greek invasion of India, or about 300 B.C. Moreover, it is by no means impossible that the epic narrative was originally composed-as some other portions of the works are-in prose, either continuous or mixed with snatches of verse. Nay, in the opinion of some scholars, this poem (as well as the Ramayana) may even have been originally composed in some popular dialect, which would certainly best account for the irregular and apparently prakritic or dialectic forms in which these works abound. The leading position occupied in the existing epic by Krishna (whence it is actually called kdrshna veda, or the veda of Krishna), and the Vaishnava spirit pervading it, make it very probable that it assumed its final form under the influence of the Bhagavata sect with whom Vasudeva (Krishna), originally apparently a venerated local hero, came to be regarded as a veritable god, and incarnation of Vishnu. Its culminating point this sectarian feature attains in the Bhagavad-gitd (i.e. the upanishad), “ sung by the holy one ”-the famous theosophic episode, in which Krishna, in lofty and highly poetic language, expounds the doctrine of faith (bhakti) and claims adoration as the incarnation of the supreme spirit. Of the purely legendary matter incorporated with the leading story of the poem, not a little, doubtless, is at least as old as the latter itself. Some of these episodes-especially the well-known story of Nala and Damayanti, and the touching legend of Savitri-form themselves little epic gems of considerable poetic value. The Rdmdyana, i.e. poem “ relating to Rama, ” is ascribed to the poet Valmiki; and, allowance being made for some later additions, the poem indeed presents the appearance of being the work of an individual genius. In its present form it consists of some 24,000 slokas, or 48,000 lines of sixteen syllables, divided into seven books.

(I.) King Dasaratha of Kosala, reigning at Ayodhya. (Oudh), has four sons borne him by three wives, viz. Rama, Bharata and the twins Lakshmana and Satrughna. Rama, by being able to bend an enormous bow, formerly the dreaded weapon 0 the god Rudra, wins for a wife Sita, daughter of Ianaka, king of Videha (Tirhut). (II.) On his return to Ayodhya. he IS to be appointed heir-apparent (yuva-raja, Le. juvenis rex); but 'Bharata's mother persuades the king to banish his eldest son for fourteen years to the wilderness, and appoint her son instead. Separation from his favourite son soon breaks the king's heart; whereupon the ministers call on Bharata to assume the reins of government. He refuses, however, and, betaking himself to Rama's retreat on the Chitrakiita mountain (in Bundelkhund), implores him to return; but, unable to shake Ramafs resolve to complete his term of exile, he consents to take charge of the kingdom in the meantime. (III.) After a ten years' residence in the forest, Rama attracts the attention of a female demon (rakshasi); and, infuriated by the rejection of her advances, and by the wounds inflicted on her by Lakshmana, who keeps Rama company, she inspires her brother Ravana, demon king of Ceylon, with love for Sita, in consequence of which the latter is carried off by him to his cagtal Lanka. While she resolutely rejects the Rakshasa's addresses, ama sets out with his brother to her rescue. (lV.) After numerous adventures they enter into an alliance with Sugriva, king of the monkeys; and, with the assistance of the monkey-general Hanuman, and Ravana's own brother Vibhishana, they prepare to assault Lanka. (V.) The monkeys, tearing up rocks and trees, construct a passage across the straits the so-called Adam's Bridge, still designated Rama's Bridge in India. (Vl.) Having crossed over with his allies, Rama, after many hot encounters and miraculous deeds, slays the demon and captures the stronghold; whereupon he places Vibhishana on the throne of Lanka. To allay Rama's misgivings as to any taint she might have incurred through contact with the demon, Sita now successfully undergoes an ordeal by fire; after which they return to Ayodhya, where, after a triumphal entry, Rama is installed. (VII.) Rama, however, seeing that the people are not yet satished of Sita/s purity, resolves to put her away; whereupon, in the forest, she falls in with Valmiki himself, and at his hermitage gives birth to two sons. While growing up there, they are taught by the sage the use of the bow, as well as the Vedas, and the Ramayana as far as the ca ture of Lanka and the royal entry into Ayodhya. Ultimately lgama discovers and recognizes them by their wonderful deeds and their likeness to himself, and takes his wife and sons back with him. The last book, as will be noticed from this bare outline, presents a somewhat strange appearance. There can be little doubt that it is a later addition to the work; and the same is apparently the case as regards the first book, with the exception of certain portions which would seem to have formed the beginning of the original poem. In these two books the character of Rama appears changed: he has become deified and identified with the god Vishnu, whilst -in the body of the poern his character is simply that of a perfect man and model hero. As regards the general idea underlying the leading story, whilst the f1rst part of the narrative can hardly be said to differ materially from other historical and knightly romances, the second part-the expedition to Lanka-on the other hand has called forth different theories, without, however, any general agreement having so far been arrived at. Whilst Lassen and Weber would see in this .warlike expedition a poetical representation of the spread of Aryan rule and civilization over southern India, Talboys Wheeler took the demons of Lanka, against whom Rama's campaign is directed, to be intended for the Buddhists of Ceylon. More recently, again, Professor jacobil of Bonn has endeavoured to prove that the poem has neither an allegorical nor a religious tendency, but that its background is a purely mythological one-Rama representing the god Indra, and Sita-in accordance with the meaning of the namer-the personified “ F urrow, ” as which she is already invoked in the Rigveda, and hence is a tutelary spirit of the tilled earth, wedded to Indra, the Jupiter Pluvius. Moreover, from a comparison of the narrative of the poem with a popular version of it, contained in one of the Pali “ birth stories, ” the Dasaratha-jataka, which lacks the second part of the story, Professor Weber tried to show that the- expedition of Lanka cannot have formed part of the original epic, but was probably based on some general acquaintance with the Troy legend of Greek poetry.

A remarkable feature of this poem is the great variation of its textual condition in different parts of the country, amounting in fact to at least three different recension's. The text most widely prevalent both in the north and south has been printed repeatedly, with commentary, at Bombay, and was taken by Mr R. T. H. Griffith as the basis for his beautiful poetical translation.2 The so-called Gauda or Bengal recension, on the other hand, which differs most of all, has been edited, with an Italian prose translation, by G. Gorresio;3 whilst the third recension, recognized chiefly in Kashmir and western India, is so far known only from manuscripts. The mutual relation of these versions will appear from the fact that about one-third of the matter of each recension is not found in the other two; whilst in the common portions, too, there are great variations both in regard to the order of verses and to textual readings. To account for this extraordinary textual diversity, it has been suggested that the poem wasmost likely originally composed in a popular dialect, and was thence turned into Sanskrit by different hands trying to improve on one another; whilst Professor Tacobi would rather ascribe the difference to the fact that the poem was for a long time handed down orally in Sanskrit by rhapsodises, or professional minstrels, when such variations might naturally arise in different parts of the country. Yet another version of the same story, with, however, many important variations of details, forms an episode of the M ahdbhdrata, the Rdmopzikhyzina, the relation of which to Valmiki's work is still a matter of uncertainty. In respect of both versification and diction the Ramayana is of a distinctly more refined character than the larger poem; and, indeed, Valmiki is seen already to cultivate some of that artistic style of poetry which was carried to excess in the later artihcial Kavyas, whence the title of ddi-ktwi, or first poet, is commonly applied to him. Though-the political conditions reflected in the older parts of the Ramayana seem to correspond best to those of pre-Buddhistic times, this might after all only apply to the poetic material handed down orally and eventually cast into its present form. To characterize the Indian epics in a single word: though often disfigured by grotesque fancies and wild exaggerations, they are yet noble works, abounding in passages of remarkable descriptive power, 1 Das Rzimdyana (Bonn, 1893).

1,2 London, 187O-1874; there is also an English prose translation by M. N. Dutt (Calcutta, 1894); and a condensed version in English verse by Romesh Dutt (London, 1899).

3 Turin, 1843-1867. intense pathos, and high poetic grace and beauty; and while, as works of art, they are far inferior to the Greek epics, in some respects they appeal far more strongly to the romantic mind of Europe, namely, by their loving appreciation of natural beauty, their exquisite delineation of womanly love and devotion, and their tender sentiment of mercy and forgiveness. 2. Puranas and Tantras.-The Purauasl are partly legendary partly speculative histories of the universe, compiled for the path" purpose of promoting some special, locally prevalent form of Brahmanical belief. They are sometimes styled a hfth Veda, and may indeed in a certain sense be looked upon as the scriptures of Brahmanical India. The term puraha, signifying “ old, ” applied originally to prehistoric, especially cosmogonic, legends, and then to collections of ancient traditions generally. The existing works of this class, though recognizing the Brahmanical doctrine of the Trimilrti, or triple manifestation of the deity (in its creative, preservative and destructive activity), are all of a sectarian tendency, being intended to establish, on quasi-historic grounds, the claims of some special god, or holy place, on the devotion of the people. For this purpose the compilers have pressed into their service a mass of extraneous didactic matter on all manner of subjects, whereby these works had become a kind of popular encyclopedias of useful knowledge. It is evident, however, from a comparatively early definition given of the typical Purana, as well as from 'numerous coincidences of the existing works, that they are based on, or enlarged from, older works of this kind, more limited in their scope and probably of a more decidedly tritheistic tendency of belief. Thus none of the Puranas, as now extant, is probably much above a thousand years old, though a considerable proportion of their materials is doubtless much older, and may perhaps in part go back to several centuries before the Christian era. In legendary matter the Puranas have a good deal in common with the epics, especially the M ahdbhdrata—the compilers or revisers of both classes of works having evidently drawn their materials from the same fluctuating mass of popular traditions. They are almost entirely composed in the epic couplet, and indeed in much the same easy flowing style as the epic poems, to which they are, however, as a rule greatly inferior in poetic value. According to the traditional classification of these works, there are said to be eighteen (Maha, -, or great) Purfinas, and as many Upa-puniqias, or subordinate Puranas. The former are by some authorities divided into three groups of six, according as one or other of the three primary qualities of external existence-goodness, darkness (ignorance), and passion-is supposed to prevail in them, viz. the Vishnu, Ndradiya, Bhligai/ata, Garuda, Padma, Vaniha-Matsya, Kurma, Linga, Siva, Skanda, Agni-Brahmdnda, Brahmavaivarta, Mdrkandeya, Bhavishya, Vdmana and Brahma-Purdnas. In accordance with the nature of the several forms of the Tfimldfti, the first two grou s chiefly devote themselves to the commendation of Vishnu andpSiva respectively, whilst the third group, which would properly belong to Brahman, has been largely appropriated for the promotion of the claims of other deities, .viz. Vis nu in his sensuous form of Krishna, Devi, Ganesa, and Sflrya. As Professor Baner'ea has shown in his preface to the Mdrkandeya, this seems to have been chiefly effected by later additions and interpolations. The insufficiency of the above classification, however, appears even from the fact that it omits the Vdyu-purdna, probably one of the oldest of all, though some MSS. substitute it for one or other name of the second group. The eighteen principal Puranas are said to consist of together 400,000 cou lets. In northern India the Vaishnava Puranas, es cially the Bhiigavata and Vishnu, ” are by far the most popular. Th; Bhagavata was formerly supposed to have been composed by Vopadeva, the grammarian, who lived in the 13th century. It has, however, been shown ' that what he wrote was a synopsis of the Purina, and that the latter is already quoted in a work by Ballala Sena of Bengal, in the 11th century. It is certainly held in the highest estimation, and, especially through the vernacular Cf. H. H. Wilson, Essays on the Religion of the Hindus, ii. ppl 6 s .

72 'lqiiere are several Indian editions of these two works. The Bhagavata has been partly printed, in an édition de luxe, with a French translation at Paris, in 3 vols., by E. Burnouf, and a fourth by M. Hauvette-Besnault. Of the Vishnu, there is a translation by H. H. Wilson, 2nd ed., enriched with valuable notes by F. Hall. This and most other Puranas have been printed in India, especially in the Bibi. Ind. and the “ Anand. series.”

R§ jendral§ la Mitra, Notices of Sansk. MSS. ii. 47. versions of its tenth book, treating of the story of Krishna, has powerfully influenced the religious belief of India. From the little we know regarding the Upa-puranas, their character does not seem to differ very much' from that of the principal sectarian Puranas. Besides these two classes of works there is a large number of so-called Sihala-purdhas, or chronicles recounting the history and merits of some holy “ place ” or shrine, where their recitation usually forms an important part of the daily service. Of much the same nature are the numerous Mzihcitmyas (literally “relating to the great spirit ), which usually profess to be sections of one or other Purina. Thus the Devi-mahcitmya, which celebrates the victories of the great “ oddess " over the Asuras, and is daily read at the temples of that tieity, forms a section, though doubtless an interpolated one, of the Markandeya-purana. Similarly the Adhydtma-Rdmdyana, a kind of spiritualized version of V§ lmiki's poem, 'forms part of the Brahmduda~-puraqia which (like the Skanda) seems hardly to exist in an independent form, but to be made up of a large number of Mahatmyas.

The Tantras4 have to be considered as partly a collateral and partly a later development of the sectarian Puranas; though, unlike these, they can hardly lay claim to any intrinsic poetic value. S These, works are looked upon as their sacred writings by the numerous Sdktas, or worshippers of the female energy (sakti) of some god, especially the wife of Siva, in one of her many forms (Parvati, Devi, Kali, Bhavani, Durga, &c.). This worship of a female representation of the divine power appears already in some of the Puranas; but in the Tantras it assumes quite a peculiar character, being largely intermixed with magic performances and mystic rites, partly, indeed, of a grossly immoral nature (see Hinduism). Of this class of writings no specimen would appear to have as yet been in existence at the time of Amarasirnha (6th century), though they are mentioned in some of thePuranas. They are usually in the form of a dialogue between Siva and his wife. The number of original Tantras is fixed at sixty-four, but they still await a critical examination at the hands of scholars. Among the best known may be mentioned the Rudrayfimala, Kuldmava, Sydma-rahasya and Kzilika-tantra.

3. Artificial Epics and Romances.-In the early centuries of the Christian era a new class of epic poems begins to make its appearance, differing widely in character from those that had preceded it. The great national epics, composed:Zim though they were in a language different from the ordinary vernaculars, had at least been drawn from the living stream of popular tradition, and were doubtless readily understood and enjoyed by at least the educated classes of the people. The .later productions, on the other hand, are of a decidedly artificial character, and must necessarily have been beyond the reach of any but the highly cultivated. They are, on the whole, singularly deficient in incident and invention, their subject matter being almost entirely derived from the old epics. Nevertheless, these works are by no means devoid of merit and interest; and a number of them display considerable descriptive power and a wealth of genuine poetic sentiment, though unfortunately often clothed in language that deprives it of half its value. The simple heroic couplet has mostly been discarded for various more or less elaborate metres; and in accordance with this change of form the diction becomes gradually more complicated-a growing taste for unwieldy compounds, a jingling kind of alliteration, or rather agnomination, and an abuse of similes marking the increasing artificiality of these productions.

The generic appellation of such works is kzivya, which, meaning "poem, " or the work of an individual poet (kavi), is, as we have seen, already applied to the Rdmdyana. Six poems of this kind are singled out by native rhetoricians as standard works, under the title of Mahtikdvya, or reat poems. Two of these are ascribed to the famous dramatist lgalidasa, the most prominent figure of this period of Indian literature and truly a master of the poetic art. In a comparatively modern couplet he is represented as having been one of nine literary “ gems " at the court of a king Vikramaditya, who was supposed to have originated the so-called Vikrama era, dating from 56-57 B.c. Recent research has, however, shown that this name was only applied to the era from about A.D. 800, and that the latter was already used in inscriptions of the 5th century under the name of the Malaya era. Hence also Fergusson's theory that it was founded by King Vikramaditya Harsha of Ujjayini (Ujjain or "4 Cf. H. H. Wilson, Essays on the Religion of the Hindus, ii. pp. 77 Sqq Oujein) in A.D. 544 and ante-dated by 600 years, falls to the ground; and with it Max Müller's theory[6] of an Indian Renaissance inaugurated during the reign of that king. Though Kālidāsa's date thus remains still uncertain, the probability is that he flourished at Ujjayinī about 440–448 A.D. Of the principal poets of this class, whose works have come down to us, he appears to be one of the earliest; but there can be little doubt that he was preceded in this as in other departments of poetic composition by many lesser lights, eclipsed by the sun of his fame, and forgotten. Thus the recently discovered Buddhacharita,[7] a Sanskrit poem on the life of the reformer, which was translated into Chinese about A.D. 420, and the author of which, Asvaghosha, is placed by Buddhist tradition as early as the time of Kanishka (who began to reign in A.D. 78), calls itself, not without reason, a “mahakavya”; and the panegyrics contained in some of the inscriptions of the 4th century[8] likewise display, both in verse and ornate prose, many of the characteristic features of the kavya style of composition. Indeed, a number of quotations in the Mahābhāshya[9] the commentary on Panini, go far to show that the kavya style was already cultivated at the time of Patanjali, whose date can hardly be placed later than the 1st century of the Christian era, though it may, and probably does, go back to the 2nd century B.C.

Of the six universally recognized “great poems” here enumerated the first two, and doubtless the two finest, are those attributed to Kalidasa. (1) The Raghuvamśa,[10] or “race of Raghu,” celebrates the ancestry and deeds of Rama. The work, consisting of nineteen cantos, is manifestly incomplete; but hitherto no copy has been discovered of the six additional cantos which are supposed to have completed it. (2) The Kumāra-sambhava[11] or “the birth of (the war-god) Kumara” (or Skanda), the son of Siva and Parvati, consists of seventeen cantos, the last ten of which were, however, not commented upon by Mallinātha, and are usually omitted in the MSS.; whence they are still looked upon as spurious by many scholars, though they may only have been set aside on account of their amorous character rendering them unsuitable for educational purposes, for which the works of Kālidāsa are extensively used in India; the 8th canto, at any rate, being quoted by Vāmana (c. A.D. 700). Another poem of this class, the Nalodaya[12] or “rise of Nala”—describing the restoration of that king, after having lost his kingdom through gambling-is wrongly ascribed to Kalidasa, being far inferior to the other works, and of a much more artificial character. (3) The Kirātārjunīya,[13] or combat between the Pinqlava prince Arjuna and the god Siva, in the guise of a Kirata or wild mountaineer, is a poem in eighteen cantos, by Bharavi, who is mentioned together with Kalidasa in an inscription dated A.D. 634. (4) The Sisupāla-badha, or slaying of Sisupala, who, being a prince of Chedi, reviled Krishna, who had carried off his intended wife, and was killed by him at the inauguration sacrifice of Yudhishthira, is a poem consisting of twenty cantos, attributed to Māgha,[14] whence it is also called Mdghakzivya. (5) The Rāvanabadha, or “slaying of Rāvana,” more commonly called Bhaṭṭikāvya, to distinguish it from other poems (especially one by Pravarasena), likewise bearing the former title, was composed for the practical purpose of illustrating the less common grammatical forms and the figures of rhetoric and poetry. In its closing couplet it professes to have been written at Vallabhi, under Sridharasena, but, several princes of that name being mentioned in inscriptions as having ruled there in the 6th and 7th centuries, its exact date is still uncertain. Bhatti, apparently the author's name, is usually identified with the well-known grammarian Bhartrihari, whose death Professor M. Müller, from a Chinese statement, fixes at A.D. 650, while others make him Bhartriharfs son. (6) The Naishadhiya, or Naishadha-charita, the life of Nala, king of Nishadha, is ascribed to Sri-Harsha (son of Hira), who is supposed to have lived in the latter part of the 12th century. A small portion of the simple and noble episode of the Mahdb drqta is here retold in highly elaborate and polished stanzas, and with a degree of lasciviousness which (unless it be chiefly due to the poet's exuberance of fancy) gives a truly appalling picture of social corruption. Another highly esteemed poem, the Rdghaua-pzindaviya, composed by Kaviraja (“king of poets”)—whose date is uncertain, some scholars placing him about A.D. 800, others later than the 10th century—is characteristic of the trifling uses to which the poet s art was put. The well-turned stanzas are so ambiguously worded that the poem may be interpreted as relating to the leading story of either the Rāmdyana or the Mahābhārata. Less ambitious in composition, though styling itself a mahākāvya, is the Vikramānkadevacharita,[15] a panegyric written about A.D. 1085 by the Kashmir poet Bilhana, in honour of his patron the Chalukya king Vikramaditya of Kalyana, regarding the history of whose dynasty it supplies some valuable information.

In this place may also be mentioned, as composed in accordance with the Hindu poetic canon, the Rajatarangini,[16] or “river of kings,” being a chronicle of the kings of Kiashmir, and the only important historical work in the Sanskrit language, though even here considerable allowance has to be made for poetic licence and fancy. The work was composed by the Kashmirian poet Kalhana about 1150, and was afterwards continued by three successive supplements, bringing down the history of Kashmir to the time of) the emperor Akbar. Worthy of mention, in this place, are also two works on the life of Buddha, which may go back to the 1st century of the Christian era, viz. the Lalitavistara[17] and the Mahévastu,[18] written in fairly correct Sanskrit prose mixed' with stanzas (gatha) composed in a hybrid, half Prakrit, half Sanskrit form of language.

Under the general term “kavya” Indian critics include, however, not only compositions in verse, but also certain kinds of prose works composed in choice diction richly embellished with flowers of rhetoric. The feature generally regarded by writers on poetics as the chief mark of excellence in this ornate prose style is the frequency and length of its compounds; whilst for metrical compositions the use of long compounds is expressly discouraged by some schools of rhetoric. Moreover, the best specimens of this class of prose writing are not devoid of a certain musical cadence adapting itself to the nature of the subject treated. Amongst the works of this class the most interesting are four so-called kathās (tales) or akhyayikās (novels). The oldest of these is the Dasakumaracharita,[19] or “ adventures of the ten princes”—a vivid, though probably exaggerated, picture of low-class city life—by Dandin, the author of an excellent manual of poetics, the Kavyadarsa, who most likely lived in the 6th century. Probably early in the 7th century, Subandhu composed his tale Vāsavadattā,[20] taking its name from a princess of Ujjayini (Oujein), who in a dream fell in love with Udayana, king of Vatsa, and, on the latter being decoyed to that city and kept in captivity by her father, was carried off by him from a rival suitor. The remaining two works were composed by Bana, the court poet of King Harshavardhana of Thanesar and Kanauj—who ruled over the whole of northern India, A.D. 606–648, and at whose court the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Thsang resided for some time during his sojourn in India (630–646)—viz. the Kādambari,[21] a romantic tale of a princess of that name; and the apparently never completed Harshacharita,[22] intended as an historical novel, but practically a Eanegyric (prafasti) in favour of the poet's patron, supplying, however, a valuable picture of the life of the time. Whilst these tales have occasionally stanzas introduced into them, this feature of mixed (miśra) verse and prose is especially prominent in another popular class of romances, the so-called Champūs. Of such works, which seem to have been rather numerous, it must suffice to mention two specimens, viz. the Bhārata-champū, in twelve cantos, by Ananta Bhatta; and the Champa-rdmdyana, or Bhoja-champū, in seven books, the first five of which are attributed, doubtless by way of compliment, to King Bhojarāja of Dhārā.

4. The Drama.[23]—The early history of the Indian drama is enveloped in obscurity. The Hindus themselves ascribe the origin of dramatic representation to the sage Bharata who is fabled to have lived in remote antiquity, and to have received this science Drama.directly from the god Brahman, by whom it was extracted from the Veda. The term bharata—(?) i.e. one who is kept, or one who sustains (a part)—also signifies “an actor”; but it is doubtful which of the two is the earlier— the appellative use of the word, or the notion of an old teacher of the dramatic art bearing that name. There still exists an extensive work, in epic verse, on rhetoric and dramaturgy, entitled Nā ya-śāstra,[24] and ascribed to Bharata. Though this is probably the oldest theoretic work on the subject that has come down to us, it can hardly be referred' to an earlier period than several centuries after the Christian era. Not improbably, however, this work, which presupposes a fully developed scenic art, had an origin similar to that of some of the metrical lawbooks, which are generally supposed to be popular and improved editions of older sūtra-works. We know that such treatises existed at the time of Panini, as he mentions two authors of Naṭa-sūtras, or “rules for actors,” viz. Silalin and Krisasva. Now, the words nafa and nāṭya—as well as nāṭaka, the common term for “drama”—being derived (like the modern vernacular “Nautch”=nṛitya) from the root naṭ (nṛt) “to dance,” seem to point to a pantomimic or choral origin of the dramatic art. It might appear doubtful, therefore, in the, absence of any clearer definition in Panini's grammar, whether the “actors rules” he mentions did not refer to mere pantomimic performances. Fortunately, however, Patanjali, in his “great commentary,” speaks of the actor as singing, and of people going “to hear the actor.” Nay, he even mentions two subjects, taken from the cycle of Vishnu legends—viz. the slaying of Karnsa (by Krishna) and the binding of Bali (by Vishnu)—which were represented on the stage both by mimic action and declamation. judging from these allusions, theatrical entertainments in those days seem to have been very much on a level with the old religious spectacles or mysteries of Europe, though there may already have been some simple kinds of secular plays which Patanjali had no occasion to mention. It is not, however, till some five or six centuries later that we meet with the first real dramas, which mark at the same time the very culminating point of Indian dramatic composition. In this, as in other departments of literature, the earlier works have had to make way for later and more perfect productions; and no trace now remains of the intermediate phases of development. Thus we know of at least five predecessors of Kālidāsa from whom nothing but a few quotations have been preserved.

Here, however, the problem presents itself as to whether the existing dramatic literature has naturally grown out of such popular religious performances as are alluded to by Patanjali, or whether some foreign influence has intervened at some time or other and given a different direction to dramatic composition. The question has been argued both for and against the probability of Greek influence; but 'it must still be considered as sub judice; the latest investigator, M. Sylvain Lévi, having given a decided opinion against outside influence. There are doubtless some curious points of resemblance between the Indian drama and the Modern Attic (and Roman) comedy, viz. the prologue, the occasional occurrence of a. token of recognition, and a certain correspondence of characteristic stage figures:-especially the Vidūshaka, or jocose companion of the hero, presenting a certain analogy to the servus of the Roman stage, as does the Vita, the hero's dissolute, though accomplished, boon-companion, of some plays, to the Roman parasite-for which the assumption of some acquaintance with the Greek comedy on the part of the earlier Hindu writers would afford a ready explanation. On the other hand, the differences between the Indian and Greek plays are perhaps even greater than their coincidences, which, moreover, are scarcely close enough to warrant our calling in question the originality of the Hindus in this respect. Certain, however, it is that, if the Indian poets were indebted to Greek playwrights for the first impulse in dramatic composition, in the higher sense, they have known admirably how to adapt the Hellenic muse to the national genius, and have produced a dramatic literature worthy to be ranked side by side with both the classical and our own romantic drama. It is to the latter especially that the general character of the Indian play presents a striking resemblance, much more so than to the classical drama. The Hindu dramatist has little regard for the “unities” of the classical stage, though he is hardly ever guilty 'of, extravagance in his disregard of them. Unlike the Greek dramatic theory, it is an invariable rule of Indian dramaturgy, that every play, however much of the tragic element it may contain, must have a happy ending. The dialogue is invariably carried on in prose, plentifully interspersed with those neatly turned lyrical stanzas in which the Indian poet delights to depict some natural scene, or. some temporary physical or mental condition. The most striking feature of the Hindu play, however, is the mixed nature of its language. While the hero and leading male characters speak Sanskrit, :women and inferior male characters use various Prakrit dialects. As regards these dialectic varieties, it can hardly be doubted that at the time when they were first employed in this way they were local vernacular dialects; but in the course of the development of the scenic art they became permanently fixed for special dramatic purposes, just as the Sanskrit had, long before that time, become fixed for general literary purposes. Thus it would happen that these Prakrit dialects, having once become stationary, soon diverged from the spoken vernaculars, until the difference between them was as great as between the Sanskrit and the Prakrits. As regards the general character of the dramatic Prakrits, they are somewhat more removed fi om the Sanskrit type than the Pali, the language of the Buddhist canon, which again is in a rather more advanced state than the language of the Asoka~ inscriptions (c. 250 B.C.). And, as the Buddhist sacred books were committed to writing about 80 B.C., the state of their language is attested for that period at latest; while the 'grammatical fixation of the scenic Prakrits has probably to be referred to the early centuries of the Christian era. The existing dramatic literature is not very extensive. The number of plays of all kinds of any literary value will scarcely amount to fifty. The reason for this paucity of dramatic productions doubtless is that they appealed' to the tastes of only a limited class of highly cultivated persons, and were in consequence but seldom acted. As regards the theatrical entertainments of the common people, their standard seems never to have risen much above the level of the religious spectacles mentioned by Patanjali. Such at least is evidently the case as regards the modern Bengali jātrās (Skt. yātrās)—described by Wilson as exhibitions of some incidents in the youthful life of Krishna, maintained in extempore dialogue, interspersed with popular songs—as well as the similar rāsas of the western provinces, and the rough and ready performances of the bhanrs, or professional buffoons. Of the religious drama Sanskrit literature offers but one example, viz. the famous Gītagovinda,[25] composed by Jayadeva in the 12th century. It is rather a mytho-lyrical poem, which, however, in the opinion of Lassen, may be considered as a modern and refined specimen of the early form of dramatic composition. The subject of the poem is as follows: Krishna, while leading a cowherd's life in Vrindavana, is in love with Radha, the milkmaid, but has been faithless to her for a while. Presently, however, he returns to her “whose image has all the while lingered in his breast,” and after much earnest entreaty obtains her forgiveness. The emotions appropriate to these situations are expressed by the two lovers and a friend of Rādhā in melodious and passionate, if voluptuous, stanzas of great poetic beauty. Like the Song of Solomon, the Gitagovinda, moreover, is supposed by the Hindu commentators to admit of a mystic interpretation; for, “as Krishna, faithless for a time, discovers the vanity of all other loves, and returns with sorrow and longing to his own darling Radha, so the human soul, after a brief and frantic attachment to objects of sense, burns to return to the God from whence it came” (Griffith).

The Mṛichchhakaṭikā,[26] or “little clay cart,” has been usually placed at the head of the existing dramas; but, though a certain clumsiness of construction might seem to justify this distinction, the question of its relative antiquity remains far from being definitively settled. Indeed, the fact that neither Kalidasa, who mentions three predecessors of his, or Bāna, in reviewing. his literary precursors, makes any allusion-to the author of thisplay, as well as other points, seem rather to tell against the latter's priority. But seeing that Vamana quotes from the Mrichchhakatika, this play must at any rate, have been in, existence in the latter part of the 8th century. According to seyeral stanzas in the prologue, the play was composed by a king Sūdraka, who is there stated to have, through Siva's favour, recovered his eyesight, and, after seeing his son as king, to have died at the ripe age of a hundred years and ten days. Accord§ d kd ing to the same stanzas, the piece was enacted after the " fa ' king's death; but it is probable that they were added for a subsequent performance. In Bana's novel Kcidambari (c. A.D. 630), a. king Sudraka is re resented as having resided at Bidisa (Bhilsa)some 130 m. east ofpUjjayini (Ujjain), where the scene of the play is laid. Charudatta, a Brahman merchant, reduced to poverty, and Vasantasena, an accomplished courtesan, meet and fall in love with each other. This forms the main plot, which is interwoven with a political under plot, resulting in a change of dynasty. The connexion between the two plots is effected by means of the king's rascally brother-in-law, who pursues Vasantaserla with his addresses, as well as by the part of the rebellious cowherd Aryaka, who, having escaped from prison, finds shelter in the hero's house. The wicked and accuses

the latter is

prince, on being rejected, strangles Vasantasena, Charudatta of having murdered her; but, just as about to be executed, his lady love appears again on the scene. Meanwhile Aryaka has succeeded in deposing the king, and, having himself mounted the throne of Ujjain, he raises Vasantasena to the position of an honest woman, to enable her to become the wife of Charudatta. The play is one of the longest, consisting of not less than ten acts, some of which, however, are very short. The interest of the action is, on the whole, well sustained; and, altogether, the piece presents a vivid picture of the social manners of the time, whilst the author shows himself imbued with a keen sense of humour, and a master in the delineation of character.

In Kalidasa the dramatic art attained its highest point of perfection. From this accomplished poet we have three well-constructed Kiudésa plays, abounding in stanzas of exquisite tenderness and fine descriptive passages, viz. the two well-known mythopastoral dramas, akuntalri in seven and Vfikramarvaéil in five acts, and a piece of court intrigue, distinctly inferior to the other' two, entitled Mdlavikdgnimitraz in five acts. King Agnimitra, who has two wives, falls in love with Malavika, maid to the first queen. His wives endeavour to frustrate their affection for each other, but in the end Malavika turns out to be a princess by birth, and is accepted by the queens as their sister.

Sri-Harshadeva-identical with the king (Siladitya) Harshavardhana of Kanyakubja (Kanauj) mentioned above, who ruled in the first éh Har half of the 7th century-has three plays attributed to h im; h d though possibly only dedicated to 1m by poets patronized 8 " em' by him. This at least commentators state to have been the case as regards the Ratmivali, the authorship of which they assign to Bana. Indeed, had they been the king's own productions, one might have expected the Chinese pilgrims (especially I-tsing, who .saw one of the plays performed) to mention the fact. The Ratndvalif “ the pearl necklace, ” is a graceful comedy of genteel domestic manners, in four acts, of no great originality of invention; the author having been largely indebted to Kalidasafs plays. A decided merit of the poet's art is the simplicity and clearness of his style. Ratnavali, a Ceylon princess, is sent by her father to the court of King Udayana of Vatsa to become his second wife. She suffers shipwreck, but is rescued and received into Udayana's palace under the name 'of Sagarika, as one of Queen Vasavadattafs attendants. The king falls in love with her, and the queen tries to keep them apart from each other' but, on learning the maiden's origin, she becomes reconciled, and recognizes her as a “ sister/' According to Wilson, “ the manners depictured are not influenced by lofty principle or profound refection, but they are mild, affectionate and elegant. It may be doubted whether the harems of other eastern nations, either in ancient or modern times, would afford materials for as favourable a delineation.” Very similar in construction, but distinctly inferior, is the Priyadarfikd, in four acts, having for its plot another amour of the same king. The scene of the third play, the Ndgdnandaql or “ joy of the serpents ” (in five acts), on the other hand, is laid in semi-divine regions. Jimutavahana, a prince of the Vidyadharas, imbued with Buddhist principles, weds Malayavati, daughter of the king of the Siddhas, a votary of Gauri (Siva's wife). But, learning that Garuda, the mythic bird, is in the habit of consuming one snake daily, he resolves to offer himself to the bird as a victim, and finally succeeds in converting Garuda to they principle of ahimsa, or abstention from doing injury to living beings; but he himself is about 1 Both these plays are known in different recension's in different parts of India. The Bengali recension of the Sa/euntalzi was translated by Sir W. Jones, and into French, with the text, by Chézy, and again edited by R. Pischel, who has also advocated its greater antiquity. Editions and translations of the western (Devanagari) recension have been published by O. Biiihtlingk and Mon. Williams. The Vi/eramorvaéi has been edited critically by S. P. Pandit, and the southern text by R. Pischel. It has been translated by H. H. Wilson and E. B. Cowell.-2

Edited critically by S. P. Pandit; translated by C. H. Tawney (1875). and into German by A. Weber (1856), and L. Fritze (1881). 3 Edited by Taranatha Tarlcavachaspati, and by C. Ca peller in Bohtlingk's Sanskrit-Chrestomathie; with commentary (Bombay, 1895): translated by H. H. Wilson.

4 Edited by Madhava Chandra Ghosha and translated by P. Boyd, with a preface by E. B. Cowell.

to succumb from the wounds he has received, when, through the timely intervention of the goddess Gauri, he is restored to his former condition. The piece seems to have been intended as a compromise between. Brahmanical (Saiva) and Buddhist doctrines, being thus in keeping with the religious views of king Harsha, who, as we know from Hiuen Thsang, favoured Buddhism, but was very tolerant to Brahmans. It begins with a benedictory stanza to Buddha, and concludes with one to Gauri. The author is generally believed 'to have been a Buddhist, but it is more likely that he was a Saiva Brahman, possibly Bana himself. Nay, one might almost feel inclined to take the hero's self-sacrifice in favour of a Naga as a travesty of Buddhist principles. In spite of its shortcomings of construction the Nagananda is a lay of considerable merit, the characters being drawn with a sure lliand, and the humorous element introduced into it of a very respectable order. Bhavabhuti, surnamed Sri-kantha, “ he in whose throat there is beauty (eloquence), ”' was a native of Padmapura in the Vidarbha country (the Berars), being the son of the Brahman Bhava Nilakantha and his wife Jatukarni. He passed his billiterary life chiefly at the court of Yasovarman of Kanauj, u who must have reigned in the latter part of the 7th centu, seeing that, after a successful reign, he suffered defeat at the rliiands of Laladitya of Kashmir, who had mounted his throne in A.D. 695. Bhavabhflti was the author of three plays, two of which, the Mahdviracharita° (“ life of the great hero ”) and the Uttarardmacharild (“ later life of Rama ), in seven acts each, form together a dramatized version of the story of the Rdmdyana. The third, the Mrilatimédhavaf is a domestic drama in ten acts, representing the fortunes of Madhava and Malati, the son and daughter of two ministers of neighbouring kings, who from childhood have been destined for each other, but, by the resolution of the maiden's royal master to marry her to an old and ugly favourite of his, are for a while threatened with permanent separation. The action of the play is full of life, and abounds' in stirring, though sometimes improbable, incidents. The oet is considered by native 'critics to be not only not inferior to Kglidasa, but even to have surpassed him in his Uttafanimacharita, which certainly contains many fine poetic passages instinct with pathos and genuine feeling. But, though 'he ranks deservedly high as a lyric oet, he is far inferior to Kalidasa as a dramatic artist. Whilst tliie latter delights in depicting the gentler feelings and tender emotions of the human heart and the peaceful scenes of rural life, the younger poet nnds a peculiar attraction in the sterner and more imposing aspects of nature and' the human character. Bhavabhuti's language, though polished and felicitous, is elaborate and artificial compared with that of Kalidasa, and his genius is sorely shackled by a slavish adherence to the arbitrary rules of dramatic theorists.

Bhatta Narayana, surnamed Mrigarzija or Simha, “the lion, ” the author of the Venisamhdra9 (“ the binding up of the braid of hair ), is a poet of uncertain date. Tradition makes him one of the five Kanauj Brahmans whom king Adisura 712:58 of Bengal, desirous of establishing the pure Vaishnava doctrine, invited to his court, and from whom the modern' 'nga Bengali Brahmans are supposed to be descended. But be this as it may, a copperplate grant was issued to our poet in A.D. 840; and, besides, he is quoted in Anandavardhanafs Dhvanyziloka, written in the latter part of the 9th century. The play, consisting of six acts, takes its title from an incident in the story of the Mahcibhardla when Draupadi, having been lost at dice by Yudhishthira, has her braid of hair unloosened, and is dragged by the hair before the assembly by one of the Kauravas; this insult being subsequently avenged by Bhima slaying the offender, whereupon Draupadi's braid is tied tip again, as beseems a married woman. The piece is composed in a style similar to that of Bhavabhf1ti's plays, but is inferior to them in dramatic construction and poetic merit, though vlalued by critics for its strict adherence to the rules of the dramatic t eory.

The Hanuman-mi;aka1° is a dramatized version of the story of Rama, interspersed with numerous purely descriptive poetic passages. It consists of fourteen acts, and on account of its length is also called the Mahci-ndpaka, or great drama. Contrary to the general practice, it has no prologue, and Sanskrit alone is employed in it. Tradition relates that it was composed by Hanuman, the monkey general, and inscribed on rocks; but, Valmiki, the author of the Rémdyapa, 5 This is the commentator's explanation of the name, whilst M. Levi would render it by “ the divine throat." " Edited by F. H. Trithen (1848); with commentary, A. Barooah (Calcutta, 1877) and Parab (Bombay, 1892); translated by J. Pickford (1871).

Edited with commentary and translation (Nagpur, 1895); with commentary, Aiyar and Parab (1899); translation by H. H. Wilson and C. H. Tawney. .

8 Edited by R. G. Bhandarkar (1876); translated by H. H. Wilson. Whether, as M. S. Lévi suggests, the fact of the play consisting of ten acts points to its having been composed in imitation of the M zichchhakah/ati must remain uncertain. ° Edited by j. Grill (1871); twice with commentary (Bombay); English translation by S. M. Tagore (Calcutta). 1° Printed with Mohanadasa's commentary (Bombay, 1861). being afraid lest it might throw his own poem into the shade, Hanumin allowed him to cast his verses into the sea. Thence fragments were ultimately picked up by a merchant, and brought to King Bhoja, who directed the poet Damodara Misra to put them together and fill up the lacunae; whence the present composition originated. Whatever particle of truth there may be in this story, the “ great drama " seems certainly to be the production of different hands. “The language, " as Wilson remarks, “is in general very harmonious, but the work is after all a most disjointed and nondescript composition, and the patchwork is very glaringly and clumsily put together." It is nevertheless a work of some interest, as compositions of mixed dramatic and declamatory passages of this kind may have been common in the early stages of the dramatic art. The connexion of the poet with King Bhoja, also confirmed by the Bhoja-prabandha, would bring the composition, or final redaction, down to about the 10th Of 11th century. A Mahzimiiaka is, however, already referred to by Anandavardhana (9th century); and, besides, there are two different recension's of the work, a shorter one commented upon by Mohanadasa, and a longer one arranged by Madhusudana. A Damodara Gupta is mentioned as having lived under layapida of Kashmir (755-786); but this can scarcely be the same as the writer connected with this work. The Mudrdr¢iksha.va,1 or “ Rakshasa (the minister) with the signet, " is a drama of political intrigue, in seven acts, partly based on historical events, the plot turning on the reconciliation of Rakshasa, the minister of the murdered king Nanda, with the hostile party, consisting of Prince Chandragupta (the Greek Sandrocottus, 315-291 B.C.), who succeeded Nanda, and his minister Chanakya. The plot is developed with considerable dramatic skill, in vigorous, if not particularly elegant, language. The play was composed by Visakhadatta, prior, at any rate, to the I 1th century, whilst Professor ]acobi infers from astronomical indications that it was written in A.D. 860.

The Prabodha-chandrodayaf or “ the moon-rise of intelligence, ” composed by Krishnamisra about the 12th century, is an allegorical play, in six acts, the dramalis personae of which consist entirely of abstract ideas, divided into two conflicting hosts. Of numerous inferior dramatic compositions we may mention as the best-the Anarghya-rdghava, by Murari; the Bala-rrimdyana, one of six plays (four of which are known) by Rnjaéekharaf and the Prasanna-rdghava# by Jayadeva, the author of the rhetorical treatise Chandraloka. Abstracts of a number of other pieces are given in H. H. Wilson's Hindu Theatre, the standard work on this subject. The dramatic genius of the Hindus may be said to have exhausted itself about the 14th century.

5. Lyrical, Descriptive and Didactic Poetryr-Allusion has already been made to the marked predilection of the medieval Indian poet for depicting in a single stanza some

fy peculiar physical or mental situation. The profane

lyrical poetry consists chiefly of such little poetic pictures, which form a prominent feature of dramatic compositions. Numerous poets and poetesses are only known to us through such detached stanzas, preserved in native anthologies or manuals of rhetoric, and enshrining a vast amount of descriptive and contemplative poetry. Thus the Saduklikarmimrilaf or “ ear-ambrosia of good sayings, ” an anthology compiled by Sridhara Dasa in 1205, contains verses by 446 different writers; while the Sdrngadharapaddhatif of the 14th century, contains some 6000 verses culled from 264 different writers and works; and Vallabhadevafs Subhdshitavalif another such anthology, consists of some 3500 verses ascribed to some 3 50 poets. These verses are either of a purely descriptive or of an erotic character; or they have a didactic tendency, being intended to convey, in an attractive and easily remembered form, some moral truth or useful counsel. An excellent specimen of a longer poem, of a partly descriptive, partly erotic character, is K5.lidasa's Meghaduta, ” or “ cloud messenger, ” in which a banished Yaksha 1 Edited (Bombay, 1884, 1893) by K. T. Telang, who discusses the date of the work in his preface; transl. H. H. Wilson; German, L. Fritze; French, Victor Hehn.

Translated by ]. Taylor (1810); by T. Goldstiicker into German (1842). Edited by H. Brockhaus (1845); also Bombay (18Q8). Another play, composed entirely in Prikrxt, by Rijasekhara (c. A.D. 900), the Karpiiramanjari, has been critically edited by Sten geonfzw, with English translation by Ch. R. Lanman, Harvard Or. r. 1901

Ed. Shivarima Raoji Khopakar (Bombay, 1894). 5 Rajendralala Mitra, Notices, iii. p. 134. ° Ed. P Peterson (Bombay, 1888).

" Ed, P. Peterson and Durgiiprasada (Bombay, 1886). Text and translation by H. Wilson; with vocabulary by S. Johnson; with German vocabulary by Stenzler (1874); often, with commentary, in India.

(demi-god) sends a love-message across India to his wife in the Himalaya, and describes, in verse-pictures of the stately mandakranta metre the various places and objects over which the messenger, a cloud, will have to sail in his airy voyage. This little masterpiece has called forth a number of more or less successful imitations, such as Lakshmidasa's Suka-sande§ a, or “ parrot-message, ” lately edited by the maharaja of Travancore. Another much-admired descriptive poem by Kalidasa is the Rim-samhdra, ° or “collection of the seasons, ” in which the attractive features of the six seasons are successively set forth. As regards religious lyrics, the fruit of sectarian fervour, a large collection of hymns and detached stanzas, extolling some special deity, might be made from Puranas and other works. Of independent productions of this kind only a few of the more important can be mentioned here. Sankara Acharya, the great Vedantist, who seems to have flourished about A. D. 800, is credited with several devotional poems, especially the Ananda-lahari, or “ wave of joy, ” a hymn of 103 stanzas, in praise of the goddess Parvati. The Siirya-Sataka, or century of stanzas in praise of Surya, the sun, ,=is ascribed to Mayfira, the contemporary (and, according to a tradition, the father-in-law) of Bana (in the early part of the 7th century). The latter poet himself com osed the Chazzdikdstotra, a hymn of 102 stanzas, extolling § iva's consort. The Kharzdapra.§ asti, a poem celebrating the ten avataras of Vishnu, is ascribed to no other than Hanuman, the monkey general, himself. ]ayadeva's beautiful poem Gitagovinda, which, like most productions concerning Krishna, is of a very sensuous character, has already been referred to. The particular branch of didactic poetry in which India is especially rich is that of moral maxims, expressed in single stanzas or couplets, and forming the chief vehicle of the Niti-Sdstra or ethic science. Excellent collections giiffgf of such aphorisms have been published-in Sanskrit and German by O. v. Bohtlingk, and in English by John Muir. Probably the oldest original collection of this kind is that ascribed to Chanakya, -and entitled Rdjanitisamuchchayaf' “ collection on the conduct of kings ”-traditionally connected with the Machiavellian minister of Chandragupta, but (in its present form) doubtless much later-of which there are several recension's, especially a shorter one of one hundred couplets, and a larger one of some three hundred. Another old collection is the Kdmandakiya-Nitisara,11 ascribed to Kamandaki, who is said to have

been the disciple of Chanakya. Under the name of Bhartrihari have been handed down three centuries of sententious couplets, ” one of which, the nfita-Sataka, relates to ethics, whilst the other two, the sringdra- and 'vairagya-.§ alakas, consist of amatory and devotional verses respectively. The N iti-pradipa, or “ lamp of conduct, ” consisting of sixteen stanzas, is ascribed to Vetalabhatta who is mentioned as one of “ nine gems.” The Amaril§ a2aka, “ consisting of a hundred stanzas, ascribed to a'KiAng Amaru (sometimes wrongly to Sankara); the Bhamini-vilasa,14 or “ dalliance of a fair woman, ” by Jagannatha; and the Chaurasuratapancha.§ ikd,15 by Bilhana (1 1th century), are of an entirely erotic character.

6. Fables and N narratives.- For purposes of popular instruction stanzas of an ethical import were early worked up with existing prose fables and popular stories, probably in imitation of the Buddhist jritakas, or birth-stories. A collection of this kind, intended as a manual for the guidance of princes (in usum delphini), was translated into Pahlavi in the reign of the Persian king Chosru Nushirvan, A.D. 9 The first Sanskrit book published (by Sir W. ]ones), 1792. Text and Latin translation by P. v. Bohlen, edited, with notes and translation, by S. Ayyar (Bombay, 1897); partly translated, in verse, by R. T. H. Griffith, Specimens of Old Indian Poetry. ° Ed. Klatt (1373); German transl. O. Kressler (1906). 11 Edited by Rajendralala Mitra, Bibl. Ind.; with translation and notes (Madras, 1895).

W Translation, in English verse, by C. H. Tawney. H Ed. R. Simon (1893).

" Edited, with French translation. by A. Bergaigne (1872); with English translation, by Sheshadri Iyar (Bombay, 1894). 15 Edited b P. v. Bohlen (1833); with German translation, W. Solf (1886); Elnglish translation by Edwin Arnold (1896). Fables and

I1 8|'f8


531-5795 but neither this translation nor the original is any longer extant. A Syriac translation, however, made from the Pahlavi in the same century, under the title of “ Qualilag and Dimnag ”-from the Sanskrit “ Karataka and Damanaka, ” two jackals who play an important part as the lion's counsellors—has been discovered and published. The Sanskrit original, which probably consisted of fourteen chapters, was afterwards recast-the result being the Panchalautraf or “ five books ” (or headings), of which several recension's exist. A popular summary of this work, in four books, the Hitopade§ a,2 or “ Salutary Counsel, ” has been shown by Peterson to have been composed by one N arayana. Other highly popular collections of stories and fairy tales, interspersed with sententious verses, are: the Vetdlapanchavimsatif or “ twenty-five (stories) of the Vetala ” (the original of the Baital Pachisi), ascribed either to Jambhala Datta, or to Sivadasa (while Professor Weber suggests that Vetala-bhatta may have been the author), and at all events older than the rrth century, since both Kshemendra and Somadeva have used it; the Suka-saptali# or “seventy (stories related) by the parrot, ” the author and age of which are unknown; and the Simhzisana-dvdlrimsi/ed, ” or “ thirty-two (tales) of the throne, ” being lauclatory stories regarding Vikramaditya of Avanti, related by thirty-two statues, standing round the old throne of that famous monarch, to King Bhoja of Dhara to discourage him from sitting down on it. This work is ascribed to Kshemankara, and was probably composed in the time of Bhoja (who died in IO53) from older stories in the Maharashtra dialect. The original text has, however, undergone many modifications, and is now known in several different recension's. Of about the same date are two great-housesof fairy tales, composed entirely in slokas, viz. the rather wooden and careless Brilzat-kathd-mavzjarif or “ great cluster of story, ” by Kshemendra, also called Kshemankara, who wrote, c. IO2O-41040, under King Ananta of Kashmir; and the far superior and truly poetical Kathd-sarit-sdgani] or “ ocean of the streams of story, ” composed in some 21,500 couplets by Somadeva, early in the 12th century, for the recreation of Ananta's widow, Suryavati, grandmother of King Harshadeva. Both these works are based on an apparently lost work, viz. Gunadhya's Bfihat-kalhd, or “ great story, ” which was composed in some popular dialect, perhaps as early as the 1st or 2nd century of our era, and which must have rivalled the Mahabharata in extent, seeing that it is stated to have consisted of 100,000 slokas (of 32 syllables each). B. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL LITERATURE

l. LAW (Dharma).8-Among the technical treatises of the later Vedic period, certain portions of the Kalpa-sutras, or manuals of L ceremonial, peculiar to particular schools, were referred to “W” as the earliest attempts at a systematic treatment of law subjects. These are the Dharma-szitms, or “ rules of (religious) law, " also called Sclmaydchririka-szitras, or “rules of conventional usage (samaya-achara)." It is doubtful whether such treatises were at any time quite as numerous as the Grihyasutras, or rules of domestic or family rites, to which they are closely allied, and of which indeed they may originally have been an outgrowth. That the number of those actually extant is comparatively small is, however, chiefly due to the fact that this class of works was supplanted by another of a more popular kind, which covered the same ground. The Dharmasutras consist chiefly of strings of terse rules, containing the essentials of the science, and intended to be committed to memory, and to be expounded orally by the teacher—thus forming, as it were, epitomes of class lectures. These rules are interspersed 1 Edited by Kosegarten, by G. Biihler and F. Kielhorn; translated by Th. Benfey, E. Lancereau, L. Fritze; edited in Purnabhadrafs recension by [ Hertel, in Harv. Or. Ser. (1908). 2 Ed. and transl. F. Johnson, ed. P. Peterson and others in India. 3 Ed. H. Uhle (Leipzig, 1881); cf. R. F. Burton, Vikram and the Vampire (new ed., 1893).

Edited, with German translation, R. Schmidt (Leipzig, 1893), and translation of some stories of a larger recension (1896). 5 German translation, with introduction, A. Weber, Ind. Stud. xv. ° Edited, with translation and notes, by L. v. Mankowski (Leipzig, 1892); chapters 1-8 edited and translated by Sylvain Levi, Jaurn. As. (1886); cf. F. Lacote, Essai sur Gunzidhya et la Bfihatkathd (1909), where part of a Nepalese version is given. 7 Edited by H. Brockhaus (1839-1862);by Durgaprat§ pa(Bombay, 1889); translated by C. H. Tawney, Bibl. Ind. (1880-ISS6). 8 Cf. J. olly's exhaustive treatise, Recht und Sitte, in Biihler's Grundriss 1896).

with stanzas or “ gathas, " in various metres, either composed by the author himself or quoted from elsewhere, which generally give the substance of the preceding rules. One can well understand why such couplets should gradually have become more popular, and should ultimately have led to the appearance of works entirely composed in verse. Such metrical law-books did spring up in large numbers, not all at once, but over a long period of time, extending probably from about the beginning of our era, or even earlier, down to well-nigh the Mahommedan conquest; and, as at the time of their first appearance the epic impulse was particularly strong, other metres were entirely discarded for the epic sloka. These works are the metrical Dharma-§ dst1as, or, as they are usually called, the Smfiti, “ recollection, tradition, "-a term which, as we have seen, belonged to the whole body of Sutras (as opposed to the Sruti, or revelation), but which has become the almost exclusive title of the versified institutes of law (and the few Dharmasutras still extant). Of metrical Smritis about forty are hitherto known to exist, but their total number probably amounted to at least double that figure, though some of these, it is true, are but short and insignificant tracts, while others are only different recension's of one and the same work.

With the exception of a few of these works-such as the A gni-, Yama- and Vishnu-Smfitis-which are ascribed to the respective gods, the authorship of the Sm;-it is is attributed to old M rishis, such as Atri, Kanva, Vyasa, Sandilya, Bharadvija. 'mu It is, however, extremely doubtful whether in most cases this attribution is not altogether fanciful, or whether, as a rule, there really existed a traditional Connexion between these works and their alleged authors or schools named after them. The idea, which early suggested itself to Sanskrit scholars, that Smritis which passed by the names of old Vedic teachers and their schools might simply be metrical recasts of the Dharma- (or Grihya-) sutras of these schools, was a very natural one, and, indeed, is still a very probable one, though the loss of the original Sutras, and the modifications and additions which the Smritis doubtless underwent in course of time, make it very difficult to prove this point. One could, however, scarcely account for the disappearance of the Dharmasutras of some of the most important schools except on the ground that they were given up in favour of other works; and it is not very likely that this should have been done, unless there was some guarantee that the new works, upon the whole, embodied the doctrines of the old authorities of the respective schools. Thus, as regards the most important of the Smritis, the Mdnava-Dhar1na5dstra,9 there exist both a Srauta- and a Grihya-sfltra of the l/Ianava school of the Black Yajus, but no such Dharmasutra has hitherto been discovered, though the former existence of such a work has been made all but certain by Professor Buhler's discovery of quotations from a Manavam, consisting partly of prose rules, and partly of couplets, some of which occur literally in the Manusmriti, whilst others have been slightly altered there to suit later doctrines, or have been changed from the original trishtubh into the epic metre. The idea of an old law-giver Manu Svayambhuva-“ sprung from the self-existent (svayam-bhf1)" god Brahman (m.)-reaches far back into Vedic antiquity: he is mentioned as such in early texts; and in Y§ ska's Nirukta a sloka occurs giving his opinion on a point of inheritance. But whether or not the Manava-Dharmasutra embodied what were supposed to be the authoritative precepts of this sage on questions of sacred law we do not know; nor can it as yet be shown that the Manusmriti, which seems itself to have undergone considerable modifications, is the lineal descendant of that Dharmasfitra. It is, however, worthy of note that a very close connexion exists between the Manusmriti and the Vishnusastra; and, as the latter is most likely a modern, only partially remodelled, edition of the Sutras of the Black Yajus school of the Kathas, the close relation between the two works would be easily understood, if it could be shown that the Manusmriti is a modern development of the Sutras of another school of the Charaka division of the Black Yajurveda. The Miinava Dharmasastra consists' of twelve books, the first and last of which, treating of creation, transmigration and final beatitude, are, however, generally regarded as later additions. In them the legendary sage Bhrigu, here called a M anava, is introduced as Manu's disciple, through whom the great teacher has his work promulgated. Why this intermediate agent should have been considered necessary is by no means clear. Except in' these two books the work shows no special relation to Manu, for, though he is occasionally referred to in it, the same is done in other Smritis. The question as to the probable date of the final redaction of the work cannot as yet be answered. Dr Burnell has tried to show that it was probably composed under the Chalukya king Pulakesi, about A.D. 500, but his argumentation is anything but convincing. From several slokas quoted from Manu by Varahamihira, in the 6th century, it would appear that the text which the great astronomer had before him differed very considerably from our Manusmriti. It is, however, possible that he referred either to the Bf'that-Manu (Great 9 The standard edition is by G. C. Haughton, with Sir W. ]ones's translation (1825); the latest translations by A. Burnell and G. Biihler. There is also a critical essay on the work by F. johiintgen. On the relation between the Dharmasiitras and Smritis see especially West and Buhler, Digest of Hindu Law (3rd ed.), i. p. 37 seq. M.) or the Vgiddha-Manu (Old M.), who are often found quoted, and apparently represent one, if not two, larger recension's of this Smriti. The oldest existing commentary on the Mdnaua-Dharmaézislra is by Medhatithi, who is first quoted in 1200, and is usually supposed to have lived in the 9th or 10th century. He had, however, several predecessors to whom he refers as pnrve, “ the former ones." The most esteemed of the commentaries is that of Kulluka Bhatta, composed at Benares in the 15th century.

Next in importance among Smritis ranks the Yajhavalkya Dharma§ 6slra.1 Its origin and date are not less uncertain—except that, Y§ 'ia in the opinion of Professor Stenzler, which has never been V U, a questioned, it is based on the Manusmriti, and-represents a more advanced stage of legal theory and definition than that Work. Yajxiavalkya, as we have seen, is looked upon as the founder of the Vijasaneyins or White Yajus, and the author of the Satapatha-brahmana. In the latter work he is represented as having passed some time at the court of King Ianaka of Videha (Tirhut); and in accordance therewith he is stated, in the introductory couplets of the Dharmaszistra, to have propounded his legal doctrines to the sages, while staying at Mithila (the capital of Videha). Hence, if the connexion between the metrical Smritis and the old Vedic schools be a real one and not one of name merely, we should expect to find in the Yéjnavalkya-smriti special coincidences of doctrine with the Katiyasfltra, the principal Sutra of the Vajasaneyins. Now, some sufficiently striking coincidences between this Smriti and P§ .raskara's Kzitiya-Ggihyasiilra have indeed been pointed out; and if there ever existed a Dharmasfitra belonging to the same school, of which no trace has hitherto been found, the points of agreement between this and the Dharmasastra might be expected to be even more numerous. A connexion between this Smriti and the Manava-grihyasutra seems, however, likewise evident. As in the case of Manu, slokas are quoted in various works from a Bzihat- and a Vfiddha- Ydjiiavalkya. The Yajnavalkya-smriti consists of three books, corresponding to the three great divisions of the Indian theory of law: dchzira, rule of conduct (social and caste duties); vyavahdfa, civil and criminal law; and prayafchilta, penance or expiation. There are two important commentaries on the work: the amous Mildkshardf by Vijnanesvara, who lived under the Chiilukya king Vikramaditya of Kalyana (1076-1127); and another by Apararka or Apariditya, 2 petty Silara prince of the latter half of the 12th century. The Ndradiya-Dhafmafastra, or Naradasmfitif is a work of a more practical kind; indeed, it is probably the most systematic and business-Namdp like of all the Smritis. It does not concern Itself with smrm religious and moral precepts, but is strlctlyconfined to law. Of this work again there are at least two different recension's. Besides the text translated by Dr ]olly, a portion of a larger recension has come to light in India. This version has been commented upon by Asahaya, “ the peerless "-a very esteemed writer on law who is supposed to have lived before Medhatithi (? 9th century)—and it may therefore be considered as the older recension of the two. But, as it has been found to contain the word dindra, an adaptation of the Roman denarius, it cannot, at any rate, be older than the 2nd century; indeed, its date is probably several centuries later. The Parziéara-smfiti4 contains no chapter on jurisprudence, but treats only of religious duties and expiation's in 12 adhyayas. The § deficiency was, however, supplied by the famous exegete par' am' Madhava (in the latter half of the 14th century), who made use of Par§ sara's text for the compilation of a large digest of religious law, usually called Pardfara-mddhaviyam, to which he added a third chapter on vyavahara, or law proper. Besides the ordinary text of the Parasara-smriti, consisting o rather less than 600 couplets, there is also extant a Bfihat-Pardiarasmfiti, probabéy an amplification of the former, containing not less than 2980 (accoring to others even 3300) slokas.

Whether any of the Dharmasastras were ever used In India as actual “ codes of law ” for the practical administration of justice is very doubtful; indeed, so far as the most prominent works of this class are concerned, it is highly improbable? No doubt these works were held to be of the highest authority as laying down the principles of religious and civil duty; but' it was not so much any single text as the whole body of the Smriti that was looked upon as the embodiment of the divine law. Hence, the moment the actual work of codification begins in the 11th century, we find the jurists engaged in practically showing how the Smritis confirm and supplement each other, andy in reconciling seeming contradictions between them. This new phase of Indian jurisprudence commences with VijfIanesvara's Milakshara, which, though primarily a commentary on Y aj navalkya, is so rich in original matter and illustrations from other Smritis that it is far more adapted to serve as a code of law than the work it professes to explain. This treatise is held in high esteem all over India, with the exception of the Bengal or Gauriya 1 Edited, with a German translation, by F. Stenzler. 2 Translated by H. T. Colebrooke.

3 Ed. (Bibl. Ind., 1885) ]. jolly, trsl. S.B.E. xxxiii. Edited in Bombay Sansk. Ser. (1893); translated Bibl. Ind. (1887). The chapter on inheritance (daya-vibhaga) translated by- A. C. Burnell (1868).

5 See West and Biihler, Digest, i. p. 55. A different view is expressed by A. Burnell, Ddyavibhdga, p. xiii.

school of law, which recognizes as its chief authority the digest of its founder, ]imfItav§ .hana, especially the chapter on succession, entitled Dayabh<iga.“ Based on the Mitaksharé, are the Smfilichandriktif a work of great common-sense, written by Devanda Bhatta, in the 13th century, and highly esteemed in Southern India; and the Viramitrodaya, a compilation consisting of two chapters, on achara and vyavahara, made in the first half of the 17th century by Mitramisra, for Raja Virasimha, or Birsinh Deo of Orchha, who murdered Abul Fazl, the minister of the emperor Akbar, and author of the Ain i Akbari. There is no need here to enumerate any more of the vast number of treatises on special points of law, of greater or less merit, the more important of which will be found mentioned in English digests of Hindu law. II. PH1LosoPHY.8-The contemplative Indian mind shows at all times a strong disposition for metaphysical speculation. In the old religious lyrics this may be detected from the very first. Not to s eak of the abstract nature of some even of the oldest Vedic deities, this propensity betrays itself in a certain mystic symbolism, tending to refine and spiritualize the original purely physical character and activity of some of the more prominent gods, and to impart a deep and subtle import to the rites of the sacrifice. The primitive worship of more or less isolated elemental forces and phenomena had evidently ceased to satisfy the religious wants of the more thoughtful minds. Various syncretist tendencies show the drift of religious thought towards some kind of unity of the divine powers, be it in the direction of the pantheistic idea, or in that of an organized polytheism, or even towards monotheism. In the latter age of the hymns the pantheistic idea is rapidly gaining ground, and finds vent in various cosmogonic speculations; and in the Brahmana period we see it fully developed. The fundamental conception of this doctrine finds its expression in the two synonymous terms brahman (neutr.), probably originally “ mystic efiusion, devotional utterance, ”9 then “ holy impulse, ” and citman 1° (masc.), “ breath, self, soul." The recognition of the essential sameness of the individual souls, emanating all alike (whether really or imaginarily) from the ultimate spiritual essence (parama-brahman) “ as sparks issue from the fire, " and destined to return thither, involved some important problems. Considering the infinite diversity of individual souls of the animal and vegetable world, exhibiting various degrees of perfection, is it conceivable that each of them is the immediate efliux of the Supreme Being, the All-perfect, and that each, from the lowest to the highest, could re-unite therewith directly at the close of its mundane existence? The difficulty implied In the latter question was at first met by the assumption of an intermediate state of expiation and purification, a kind of purgatory; but the whole problem found at last a more comprehensive solution in the doctrine of transmigration (samszira). Some scholars have suggested 11 that metempsychosis may have been the prevalent belief among the aboriginal tribes of India, and may have been taken over from them by the Indo-Aryans. This, no doubt, is possible; but in the absence of any positive proof it would be idle to speculate on its probability; the more so as the pantheistic notion of a universal spiritual essence would probably of itself sufficiently account for the spontaneous growth of such a belief. In any case, however, we can only assume that speculative minds seized upon it as offering the most satisfactory (if not the only possible) explanation of the great problem of phenomenal existence with its unequal distribution of weal and woe. It is certainly a significant fact that, once established in Indian thought, the doctrine of metempsychosis is never again called in question that, like the fundamental idea on which it rests, viz. the essential sameness of the immaterial element of all sentient beings, the notion of samszira has become an axiom, a universally conceded principle of Indian philosophy. Thus the latter has never quite risen to the heights of pure thought; its object is indeed jijndsd, the search for knowledge; but it is an inquiry (mimdmsfi) into the nature of things undertaken not solely for the attainment of the truth, but with a view to a specific object-the discontinuance of samsara, the cessation of mundane existence after the present life. Every sentient being, through ignorance, being liable to sin, and destined after each existence to be born again in some new form, dependent on the actions committed during the immediately preceding life, all mundane existence thus is the source of ever-renewed suffering; and the task of the philosopher is to discover the means of attaining moksha, “ release ” from the bondage of material existence, 'and union with the Supreme Self-in fact, salvation. It is with a view to this, “Translated by H. C. Colebrooke (1810).

7 The section on inheritance has been translated by T. Kristnasawmfy Iyer (1866).

SC . F. Max Muller, Six Systems of Indian Philosophy (1899); R. Garbe, Philosophy of Ancient India (Chicago, 1897). 9 The etymological connexion of brahman (from root varh, -vardh) with Latin verbum, English word (corresponding to a Sanskrit vardha), assumed by some scholars, though doubtful, is not impossible. The development of its meaning would be somewhat like that of Mfyos. 1° The derivation of dtman (Ger. Atem) from root an, to breathe (or perhaps av, to blow) seems still the most likely. A recent attempt to connect it with U.l,)T6S can scarcely commend itself. 1* See, ag. A. E. Gough, The Philosophy of the Upanishads, p. 24; A. A. Macdonell, Hist. of Sanskrit Lit. p. 387. and to this only, that the Indian meta physician takes up the great problems of life-the origin of man and the universe, and the relation between mind and matter.

It is not likely that these speculations were viewed with much favour by the great body of Brahmans engaged in ritualistic practices. Net that the meta physicians actually discountenanced the ceremonial worship of the old mythological gods as vain and nugatory. On the contrary, they expressly admitted the propriety of sacrifices, and commended them as the most meritorious of human acts, by which man could raise himself to the highest degrees of mundane existence, to the worlds of the Fathers and Devas. But, on the other hand, metaphysical speculation itself had gradually succeeded in profoundly modifying the original character of the sacrificial ritual: an allegorical meaning had come to be attached to every item of the ceremonial, in accordance with the strange monotheistic-pantheistic theory of the Brahmanas which makes the performance of the sacrifice represent the building up of Prajapati, the Purusha or “world man, ” and thus the creation of reproduction of the universe In the Satap. Br. (vii. 3, 4, 41) he is said to be the whole Brahman (n.), and (vii. 1, 2, 7; xi. 1, 6, 17) he is represented as the breath or vital air (prana), and the air being his self (atman). It needed but the identification of the Atman, or individual self, with the Brahman or Paramatman (supreme self), to show that the final goal lay far beyond the worlds hitherto striven after through sacrifice, a goal unattainable through aught but a perfect knowledge of the soul's nature and its identity with the Divine Spirit. “ Know ye that one Self, " exhorts one of those old idealists, 1 “ and have done with other words; for that (knowledge) is the bridge to immortality!" Intense self-contemplation being, moreover, the only way of attaining the all-important knowledge, this doctrine left little or no room for those mediatorial offices of the priest, so indispensable in ceremonial worship; and indeed we actually read of Brahman sages resorting to Kshatriya princes to hear them expound the true doctrine of salvation. But, in spite of their anti-hierarchical tendency, these speculations continued to gain ground; and in the end the body of treatises propounding the pantheistic doctrine, the Upanishads, were admitted into the sacred canon, as appendages to the ceremonial writings, the Brahmanas. The Upanishads3 thus form literally “ the end of the Veda, ” the Vedanta; but their adherents claim this title for their doctrines in a metaphorical rather than in a material sense, as “ the ultimate aim and consummation of the Veda." In later times the radical distinction between these speculative appendages and the bulk of the Vedic writings was strongly accentuated in a new classification of the sacred scriptures. According to this scheme they were supposed to consist of two great divisions-the Karma-kanda, i.e. “ the work section, " or practical ceremonial (exoteric) part, consisting of the Samhitas and Brahmanas (including the ritual portions of the Aranyakas), and the Jianakanda, “ the knowledge-section, " or speculative (esoteric) part. These two divisions are also called respectively the Piiroa- (“ former ”) and Uttara- (“ latter, " or higher') kanda; and when the speculative tenets of the Upanishads came to be formulated into a regular system it was deemed desirable that there should also be a special system corresponding to the older and larger portion of the Vedic writings. Thus arose the two systems the Parzia- (or Karma-) mimamsa, 0r“ prior (practical) speculation, " and the Uttara- (or Brahma-) mimamsa, or higher inquiry (into the nature of the godhead), usually called the Vedanta philosophy. It is not yet possible to determine, even approximately, the time when the so-called Darfanas (literally “ demonstrations ), Ph” or systems of philosophy which subsequently arose, ° were first formulated. And, though they have certainly °Ph'°"I developed from the tenets enunciated in the Upanishads, systems' there is some doubt as to the exact order in which these systems succeeded each other. Of all the systems the Vedanta has indeed remained most closely in touch with the speculations of the Upanishads, which it has further developed and systematized. The authoritative exposés of the systems have, however, apparently passed through several red actions; and, in their present form, these siitra-works' evidently belong to a com-1 Muncjlaka-upanishad, ii. 2, 5.

2 From such allusions, or statements, in the Upanishads, some scholars have actually gone the length of claiming the origin of this cardinal doctrine of Vedanta philosophy for the Kshatriyas. It seems to us, however, very much more likely that these anecdotes were introduced by the Brahmanical sages of set purpose to win over their worldly patrons from their materialistic tendencies to their own idealistic views. Kapila, the author of the materialistic Sankhya, is supposed to have been a Kshatriya, and so, we know, was the Sakya Muni.

3 (gf. P. Deussen, The Philosophy of the Upanishads (Edinburgh, 1906

Cf. Mundaka-upanishad, i. 4, Q, where these two divisions are called “ the lower (apara) and the igher (para) knowledge." 5 These works have all been printed with commentaries in India; and they have been partly translated by Ballantyne and by K. M. Banerjea. The best general view o the systems is to be obtained from H. C. Colebrooke's account, Misc. Essays, i. (2nd ed.), with Professor Cowell's notes. Compare also the brief abstract paratively recent period, none of them being probably older than the early centuries of our era. By far the ablest general review of the philosophical systems (except the Vedanta) produced by a native scholar is the Sarva-darsana-sangrahae (“ summary of all the Daréanas”), composed in the 14th century, fromaVedantist point of view, by the great exegete Madhava Acharya.

Among the different systems, six are generally recognized as orthodox, as being (either wholly or for the most part) consistent with the Vedic religion-two and two of which are again more closely related to each other than to the rest, viz.: (1) Pfirva-mimamsa (Mimamsa), and (2) Uttara-mimamsa (Vedanta); (3) Szinkhya, and (4) Yoga;

(5) Nyaya, and (6) Vaiéeshika.

I. The (Prinxa-) Mimamsa is not a system of philosophy in the proper sense of the word, but rather a system of dogmatic criticism and scriptural interpretation. It maintains the eternal existence of the Veda, the different parts of which Mim'q'” are minutely classified. Its principal object, however, is to ascertain the religious (chiefly ceremonial), duties enjoined in the Veda, and to show how these duties must be performed, and what are the special merits and rewards attaching to them. Hence arises the necessity of determining the principles for rightly interpreting the Vedic texts, as also of what forms its only claim to being classed among speculative systems, viz. a philosophical examination of the means of, and the proper method for, arriving at accurate knowledge. The foundation of this school, as well as the composition of the Sfitras or aphorisms, the Mimamsa-dar.§ ana,7 which constitute its chief doctrinal authority, is ascribed to Jaimini. The Slitras were commented on by Sabara Svamin; and further annotations (vanftika) thereon were supplied by the great theologian Kumarila Bhatta, who is supposed to have lived about A.D. 700 and to have worked hard for the re-establishment of Brahmanism. The most approved general introduction to the study of the Mimamsa is the metrical Jaiminiya-LVyaya-mala-vislaraf with a prose commentary, both by Madhava Acharya. This distinguished writer, who has already been mentioned several times, was formerly supposed, from frequent statements in MSS., to have been the brother of Sayana, the well-known interpreter of the Vedas. The late Dr Burnell9 has, however, made it very probable that these two are one and the same person, Sayana being his Telugu and Madhavacharya his Brahmanical name. In 1331 he became the jagadguru, or spiritual head, .of the Smartas (a Vedantist sect founded by Sankaracharya) at the Math of Spingeri, where, under the patronage of Bukka, king of Vidyanagara, he composed his numerous works. He sometimes passes under a third name, Vidyaranya, -svamin, adopted by him on becoming a sannyasin, or religious mendicant. 2. The Vedanta philosophy, in the comparatively primitive form in which it presents itself in most of the older Upanishads, constitutes the earliest phase of sustained metaphysical V d- t speculation. In its essential features it remains to this e an 8 day the prevalent belief of Indian thinkers, and enters largely into the religious life and convictions of the people. It is an idealistic monism, which derives the universe from an ultimate conscious spiritual principle, the one and only existent from eternity-the tman, the Self, or the Purusha, the Person, the Brahman. It is this priniordialessence or Self that pervades all things, and gives life and light to them, “ without being suffied by the visible outward impurities or the miseries of the w0rld, being itself apart”-and into which all things will, through knowledge, ultimately resolve themselves. “ The wise who perceive him as being within their own Self, to them belongs eternal peace, not to others.”1° But, while the commentators never hesitate to interpret the Upanishads as being in perfect agreement with the Vedantic system, as elaborated in later times, there is often considerable difficulty in accepting' their explanations. In these treatises only the leading features of the pantheistic theory find utterance, generally in vague and mystic, though often in singularly powerful and poetical language, from which it is not always possible to extract the author's real idea on fundamental points, such as the relation between the Supreme Spirit and the phenomenal world-whether the latter was actually evolved from the former by a power inherent in him, or whether the process is altogether a fiction, an illusion of the, individual self. Thus the Katha-upanishadu offers the following summary: “ Beyond the senses [there are the objects; beyond the objects] there is the mind (manas); beyond the mind there is the intellect (buddhi); beyond the intellect there is the Great Self. Beyond the Great One there is the Highest Undeveloped (avyaktam); beyond given in Goldstiicker's Literary Remains, vol. i. A very useful plassifgied index of philosophical works was published by F. Hall 1859 .

6 Edited in the Bibl. Ind.; translated by E. B. Cowell and A. E. Gough (1882).

7 Text and Commentary, Bibl. Ind.

8 Edited by Th. Goldstticker, completed by E. B. Cowell; also ed. Ahand-Ser. (Bombay, 1892).

9 Vamsa-brahmana, Introd.

1° Katha-upanishad, ii. 5, 12.

“ Katha-up., i. 3, 10; ii. 6, 7. the Undeveloped there is the Person (purusha), the all-pervading, characterless (alinga). Whatsoever knows him is liberated, and attains immortality.” Here the Vedantist commentator assures us that the Great Undeveloped, which the Sankhyas would claim as their own primary material principle (pradhana, prakfiti), is in reality Maya, illusion (otherwise called Avidya, ignorance, or Sakti, pgwer), the fictitious energy which in conjunction with the Highest Self (Atman, Purusha) produces or constitutes the Isvara, the Lord, or Cosmic Soul, the first emanation of the Atman, and himself the (fictitious) cause of all that seems to exist. It must remain doubtful, however, whether the author of the Upanishad really meant this, or whether he regarded the Great Undeveloped as an actual material principle or substratum evolved from out of the Purusha, thou h not, as the Sankhyas hold, coexisting with him from eternity. Besides passages such as these which seem to indicate realistic or materialistic tendencies of thought, which may well have developed into the dualistic Sankhya and kindred systems, there are others which indicate the existence even of nihilist theories, such as the Bauddhasthe § 1Znya-viidins, or affirmers of a void or primordial nothingness profess. Thus we read in the Chhandogya-upanishadzl “ The existent alone, my son, was here in the beginning, one only, without a second. ' Others say, there was the non-existent alone here in the beginning, one only, without a second-and from the non-existent the existent was born. But how could this be, my son? How could the existent be born from the non-existent? No, my son, only the existent was here in the beginning, one only, without a second.” The foundation of the Vedanta system, as “ the completion of the Veda, ” is naturally ascribed to Vyasa, the mythic arranger of the Vedas, who is said to be identical with Badarayana the reputed author of the Brahma- (or Sariraka-) Mitra, the authoritative, though highly obscure, summary of the system. The most distinguished interpreter of these-; aphorisms is the famous Malabar theologian S Mr Sankara Acharya, ” who also commented on the principal lm 3' Upanishads and the Bhagavadgita, and is said to have spent the greater part of his life in wandering all over India, as far as Kashmir, and engaging in disputations with teachers whether of the Saiva, or Vaishnava, or less orthodox persuasions-with the view of rooting out heresy and re-establishing the doctrine of the Upanishads. His controversial triumphs (doubtless largely mythical) are related in a number of treatises current, in South India, the two most important of which are the Sankara-dig-viiaya (“ Sankara's world-conquest ), ascribed to his own disciple Anandagiri, and the Sankara-vijaya, by Madhavacharya. In Sankara's philosophy 3 the theory that the

material world has no real existence, but is a mere illusion of the individual soul wrapt in ignorance, —that, therefore, it has only a practical or conventional (vyavaharika) but not a transcendental or true (paramarthika) reality, -is strictly enforced. In accordance with this distinction, a higher (para) and a lower (apara) form of knowledge is recognized; the former being concerned with the Brahman (n.), whilst the latter deals with the personal Brahma, the Iévara, or lord and creator, who, however, is a mere illusory form of the divine spirit, resulting from ignorance of the human soul. To the question why the Supreme Self (or rather his fictitious development, the Highest Lord) should have sent forth this phantasmagory this great thinker (with the author of the Sf1tras*) can return no better answer than that it must have been done for sport (lila), without any special motive-since to ascribe such a motive to the Supreme Lord would be limiting his self-sufficiency-and that the process of creation has been going on from all eternity. Sankara's Sariraka-mimamsa-bhashya' has given rise to a large number of exegetic treatises, of which Vachaspati-misra's° exposition, entitled Bhamati] is the most esteemed. Of n merous other commentaries lamina!! on the Brahma-sitras, the liri-bhashya, by Ramanuja, °'the founder of the Sri-Vaishnava sect, is the most noteworthy. This religious teacher, who flourished in 'the first half of the 12th century, caused a schism in the Vedanta school. Instead of adhering to Sankara's orthodox advaita, or non-duality, doctrine, he interpreted the obscure Sfxtras in accordance with his theory of viiishtadvaita, i.e. non-duality of the (two) distinct (principles), or, as it is more commonly explained, non-duality of that which is qualified (by attributes). According to this theory the Brahman is neither devoid of form and quality, nor is it all things; but it is endowed with all good qualities, and matter is distinct from it; whilst bodies consist of souls (chit) and matter (achit); and God is the soul. On the religious side, Ramanuja ado ts the tenets of the ancient Vishnuite Pancharatra sect, and, identifying the Brahman with Vishnu, combines with his theory the ordinary Vaishnava doctrine of periodical descents (avatara) of the deity, in various 1Vl. 2. 1.

2 Die Siitras des Vedanta, text and commentary translated by P. Deussen (Leipzig, 1887)i English translation by G. Thibaut, S.B.E. 3 P. Deussen, Das System des Vedanta (1883). A. E. Gough, The Philosophy of the Upanishads, also follows chiefly Sankara's interpretation. 4Brahmas12tra, iii. 1. 32-34.

5 Translated by G. Thibaut, S.B.E.; German, P. Deussen. ° grofesiolé Cowell assigns him to about the 10th century. 7 ibl. 11 .

forms, for the benefit of creatures; and allowing considerable play to the doctrine that faith (bhakti), not knowledge (vidyd), is the means of final emancipation. This phase of Indian religious belief, which has attached itself to the Vedanta theory more closely than to any other, makes its appearance very prominently in the Bhagavadgita, the episode of the Mahabharata, already referred towhere, however, it attaches itself to Sankhya-yoga rather than to Vedanta tenets-and is even more fully developed in some of the Puranas, especially the Bhagavata. Some scholars would attribute this doctrine of fervid devotion to Christian influence, but it is élready alluded to by Panini and in the Mahabhashya. In the andilya- (Bhakti-) s12t1'a,8 the author and date of which are unknown. the doctrine is systematically propounded in one hundred aphorisms. According to this doctrine mundane existence is due to want of faith, not to ignorance; and the final liberation of the individual soul can only be effected by faith. Knowledge only contributes to this end by removing the mind's foulness, unbelief. Its highest phase of development this doctrine probably reached in the Vaishnava sect founded, towards the end of the 15th century, by Chaitanya, whose followers subsequently grafted the Vedanta speculations on his doctrine. In opposition both to Sankara's theory of absolute unity, and to Ramanuja's doctrine of qualified unity-though leaning more towards the latter-Madhva Acharya, or Piirnaprajna (A. D. III8-1198), started his dvaita, or duality doctrine, according to which there is a difference between God and the human soul (jiva), as well as between God and nature; whilst the individual souls, which are innumerable, eternal, and indestructible, are likewise different from one another; but, though distinct, are yet united with God, like tree and sap, in an indissoluble union. This doctrine also identifies the Brahman with Vishnu, by the side of whom, likewise infinite, is the goddess Lakshmi, as Prakriti (nature), from whom inert matter (jada) derives its energy. Here also bhakti, devotion to God, is the saving element. A popular summary of the Vedanta doctrine is the Vedanta-sara by Sadananda, which has been frequently printed and translated?

3. The Sankhya 1° system seems to derive its name from its systematic enumeration (sankhya) of the twenty-five principles (tattva) it recognizes-consisting of twenty-four material and an in- S- kb dependent immaterial principle. In opposition to the '" ya Vedanta school, which maintains the eternal coexistence of a spiritual principle of reality and an unspiritual principle of unreality, the Sankhya assumes the eternal coexistence of a material first cause, which it calls either mala-Prakriti (fem.), “prime Originant” (Nature), or Pradhana, “ the principal ” cause, and a plurality of spiritual elements or Selves, Pigusha. The system recognizes no intelligent creator (such as the Iévara, or demiurgus, of the Vedanta)-whence it is called niriévara, godless; but it conceives the Material First Cause, itself unintelligent, to have become developed, by a gradual process of evolution, into all the actual forms of the phenomenal universe, excepting the souls. Its first emanation is buddhi, intelligence; whence springs ahamkara, consciousness (or “conscious mind-matter, ” Davies); thence the subtle elements of material forms, viz. five elementary particles (tanmatra) and eleven organs of sense; and finally, from the elementary particles, five elements. The souls have from all eternity been connected with Nature, -having in the first place become invested with a subtle frame (linga-, or siikshma-, éarira), consisting of seventeen principles, viz. intelligence, consciousness, elementary particles, and organs of sense and action, including mind. To account for the spontaneous development of matter, the system assumes the latter to consist of three constituents (guna) which are possessed of different qualities, viz. sativa, of pleasing qualities, such as"' goodness, ” lightness, luminosity; rajas, of pain-giving qualities, such as “ gloom, ” passion, activity; and tamas, of eadening qualities, such as “ darkness, ” rigidity, dullness, and which, if not in a state of equipoise, cause unrest and development. Through all this course of development, the soul itself remains perfectly indifferent, its sole properties being those of purity and intelligence, and the functions usually regarded as “ psychic " being due to the mechanical processes of the internal organs themselves evolved out of inanimate matter. Invested with its subtle frame, which accompanies it through the cycle of transmigration, the soul, for the sake of fruition, connects itself ever anew with Nature, thus, as it were, creating for itself ever new forms of material existence; and it is only on his attaining perfect knowledge, whereby the ever-changing modes of intelligence cease to be reflected on him, that the Purusha is liberated from the miseries of Samsara, and continues to exist in a state of absolute unconsciousness and detachment from matter. The existence of God, on the other hand, is denied by this theory, or rather considered as incapable of proof; the existence of evil and misery, for one thing, being thought incompatible with the notion of a divine origin of the world. The reputed originator of this school is the sage Kapila, to whom tradition ascribes the composition of the fundamental text-book, 8 Text, with Svapnesvara's commentary, edited by J. R. Ballantyne; translated by E. B. Cowell.

9 Last by G. A. Jacob.

1° E. Roer, Lecture rn the Sankhya Philosophy (Calcutta, 1854); B. St Hilaire, Mémoire sur le Sankhya (1852); R. Garbe, Sankhya Philosophie (Leipzig, 1894); Sankhya and Yoga (Strassburg, 1896). the (Sdnkhya-siilm, or) Sankhya-pravachana, 1 as well as the Taitvasamésa, a mere catalogue of the principles. But, though the founder would seem to have promulgated his system, in some form or other, at a very early period, these works, in their present form, have been shown to be quite modern productions, going probably not farther back than the 14th century of our era. Probably the oldest existing work is Tsvaralq'ishna's excellent .Srin-khya-kar'ika,2 which gives, in the narrow compass of sixty-nine slokas, a lucid and Coniplete sketch of the system. Though nothing certain is known regarding its author, ” this work must be of tolerable antiquity, considering that it was commented upon by Gaudapadaf* the preceptor of Govinda, who, on his part, is said to have been the teacher of Sankaracharya. Of the commentaries on the Slfitras, the rnost approved are those of Aniruddha5 and Vijnana Bhikshuf a writer probably of the latter part of the 16th century, who also wrote an independent treatise, the Sankhya-sara] consisting of a prose and a verse part, which is probably the most useful compendium of Sankhya doctrines.

4. The Yoga system is merely a schismatic branch of the preceding school, holding the same opinions on most points treated in common Y in their Siitras, with the exception of one important point, 033' the existence of God. To the twenty-live principles (lattva) of the N irisvara Sankhya, the last of which was the Purusha, the Yoga adds, as the twenty-sixth, the Nirguna Purusha-, or Self devoid of qualities, the Supreme God of the system. Hence the Yoga is called the Sesvara (theistical) Sankhya. But over and above the purely speculative part of its doctrine, which it has adopted from the sister school, the theistic Sankhya has developed a complete system of mortification of the senses—by means of prolonged apathy and abstraction, protracted rigidity of posture, and similar practices, -many of which are already alluded to in the Upanishads, —with the view of attaining to complete concentration (yoga) on, and an ecstatic vision of, the Deit, and the acquisition of miraculous powers. It is from this portion ofythe system that the school derives the name by which it is more generally known. The authoritative Sitras of the Yoga, bearing the same title as those of the sister school, viz. Sankhya-pravaohana, but more commonly called Yogafastra, are ascribed to Patafijali, who is perhaps identical with the author of the “ great commentary " on Panini. The oldest commentary on the Sutras, the Pataijala-bhzishya, is attributed to no other than Vyasa, the mythic arranger of the Veda and founder of the Vedanta. Both works have again been commented upon by Vachaspati-misra, Vijnana-bhikshu, and other writers. 5, 6. The Nyayaa and Vaiseshika are but separate branches of one and the same school, which supplement each other and the doctrines of which have virtually become amalgamated Hiya into a single system of philosophy. The special part va), taken by each of the two branches in the elaboration of ami: the system may be briefly stated in Dr R6er's words:- “ To the Nyaya belong the logical doctrines of the forms of syllogisms, terms and repositions; to the Vaiseshikas the systematical explanation otp the categories (the simplest metaphysical ideas) of the metaphysical, physical and psychical notions which notions are hardly touched upon in the Nyaya-siitras. They differ in their statement of the several modes of proof-the Nyaya asserting four modes of proof (from perception, inference, analogy and verbal communication), the Vaéieshikas admitting only the two first ones." The term Nyaya (ni-dya, “ in-going, " entering), though properly meaning “analytical investigation, " as applied to philo- sophical inquiry generally, has come to be taken more wk' Commonly in the narrower sense of “ logic, " because this school has entered more thoroughly than any other into the laws and processes of thought, and has worked out a formal system of reasoning which forms the Hindu standard of logic. The followers of these schools generally recognize seven categories (padriftha): substance (dravya), quality (guna), action (karma), generality (samanya), particularity (viéesha), intimate relation (samavaya) and non-existence or negation (abhdva). Substances, forming the substrata of qualities and actions, are, of two kinds: eternal (without a cause), viz. space, time, ether, soul and the atoms of mind, earth, water, fire and air; and non-eternal, comprising all compounds, or the things we perceive, and which must have a cause of their existence. Causality is of three kinds: that of intimate relation (material cause); that of non-intimate relation (between parts of a compound); and instrumental causality (effect-1 Translated by ]. R. Ballantyne; 2nd ed. by F. Hall. 2 Edited by C. Lassen (1832). Translations by H. T. Colebrooke and J. Davies.

3 A writer makes him the pupil of Panchaéikha, whilst another even identifies him with Kalidasa; cf. F. Hall, Sankhyasara, p. 29. 4 Translated by H. H. Wilson. A Chinese translation of a commentary resembling that of Gaudapada is said (M. Muller, India, p. 360) to have been made during the Ch'en dynasty (A.D. 557-583). 5 Translated by R. Garbe, Bibi. Ind.

Edited by Garbe (Harvard, 1895); translated (Leipzig, 1889). " Edited by F. Hall.

5 Besides Colebrooke's Essay, with Cowell's notes, see Ballantyne's translation of the Tarka-sangraha and the introduction to R6er's g translation of the Bhzishdparichheda, and his article, Z.D.M.G. xxi. 1 ing the union of component parts). Material things are thus composed of atoms (ana), Le. ultimate simple substances, or units of space, eternal, unchangeable and without dimension, characterized only by “ particularity (oi§ esha).” It is from this predication of ultimate “ particulars” that the Vaiseshikas, the originators of the atomistic doctrine, derive their name. The 'Nyaya draws a clear line between matter and spirit, and has worked out a careful and ingenious system of psychology. It distinguishes between individual or living souls (jiwitman), which are numerous, -infinite and eternal, and the Supreme Soul (Paramzitman), which is one only, the seat of eternal knowledge, and the maker and ruler (lsvara) of all things. It is by his will and agency that the unconscious living souls (soul-atoms, in fact) enter into union with the (material) atoms of mind, &c., and thus partake of the pleasures and sufferings of mundane existence. On the Hindu syllogism compare Professor Cowell's notes to Colebrooke's Essays, 2nd ed., i. p. 314. The original collection of Nyaya-s1Ztras is ascribed to Gotama, and that of the Vaiseshika-szitras to Kanada. The etymological meaning of the latter name seems to be “ little-eater, particle eater, " whence in works of hostile critics the synonymous terms Kaya-bhuj or Kano-bhaksha are sometimes derisively applied to him, doubtless in allusion to his theory of atoms. He is also occasion; ally referred to under the name of Kasyapa. Both sutra-works have been interpreted and supplemented by a number of writers, the commentary of Visvanatha on the Nyaya and that of Sankara-misra on the Vaiseshika-siitras being most generally used. There are, moreover, a vast number of separate works on the doctrines of these schools, especially on logic. Of favourite elementa treatises on the subject may be mentioned Keéava-misra's T ag;-bhdshxi, the Tarka-sangralzatl and the Bhasha-parichchheda.1° A large and important book on logic is Gangesa's Chintzimagii, which formed the text-book of the celebrated Nuddea school of Bengal, founded by Raghunatha-siromani about the beginning of the 16th century. An interesting little treatise is the Kusumaijaliu in which the author, Udayana Acharya (about the I2th century, according to Professor Cowell), attempts, in 72 couplets, to prove the existence of a Supreme Being on the principles of the Nyaya system.

As regards the different heretical systems of Hindu philosophy, there is no occasion, in a sketch of Sanskrit literature, to enter into the tenets of the two great anti-Brahmanical sects, the H tics, Jainas and Buddhists. While the original works of the eff former are written mostly in a popular (the Ardha- Systems magadhi) dialect, the northern Buddhists, it is true, have produced a considerable body of literature, ” composed in a kind of hybrid Sanskrit, but only a few of their sacred books have as yet been published;'3 and it is, moreover, admitted on all hands that for the pure and authentic Bauddha doctrines we have rather to look to the Pali scriptures of the southern branch. Nor can we do more here than briefly allude to the theories of a few of the less prominent llieterodorlg sysgleins, however interesting they may be for a history of uman t oug t.

The Charvzikas, an ancient sect of undisguised materialism, who deny the existence of the soul, and consider the human person (purusha) to be an organic body endowed with sensibility and with thought, resulting from a modification 'of the component material elements, ascribe their origin to Brihaspati; but their authoritative text-book, the Barhaspatya-sfitra, is only known so far from a few quotations.

The Paicharatras, or Bhagavatas, are an early Vaishnava sect, in which the doctrine of faith, already alluded to, is strongl developed. Hence their tenets are defended by Ramanuja, thougii they are partly condemned as heretical in the Brahma-sfitras. Their recognized text-book is the Narada-Pa1icharatra,14 whilst the Bhagavadgita is also supposed to have had some Connexion with this sect. According)to their theory the Supreme Being (Bhagavat, Vasudeva, Vishnu) ecame four separate persons by successive production. While the Supreme Being himself is indued with the six qualities of knowledge, power, strength, absolute sway, vigour and energy, the three divine persons successively emanating from him and from one another represent the living soul, mind and consciousness respectively. The Pasupatasi one of several Saiva (Mahesvara) sects, hold the Supreme Being (lévara), whom they identify with Siva (as pasu-pati, or “ lord of beasts ), to be the creator and ruler of the world, but not its material cause. With the Sankhyas they admit the notion of a plastic material cause, the Pradhana; while they follow Pataiijali in maintaining the existence of a Supreme God.

III. GRAMMAR (Vyakarana).-We found this subject enumerated as one of the six “ limbs of the Veda, " or auxiliary sciences, the study 9 Edited and translated by J. R. Ballantyne.

1° Edited and translated, with commentary, by E. Roer. “Edited and translated, with commentary, by E. B."Cowell. 2 See B. H. Hodgson, The Languages, Literature and Religion of Nepal and Tibet.

13 Lalita-vistara, ed. and partly transl. Rajendralala Mitra; ed. S. Lefmann (1908); Mahavastu, edited E. Senart; Vajra-parichchheda, edited M. Muller; Saddharma-pundarika, translated by E. Burnouf (“ Lotus de la bonne loi ); and H. Kern, Sacred Books of the East. 14 It consists of six Samhitas, one of which has been edited by K. M. Banerjea, Bibl. Ind. of which was deemed necessary for a correct interpretation of the sacred Mantras, and the proper performance of Vedic rites. Linguistic inquiry, honetic as well as grammatical, was Grammar' indeed early resorteci) to both for the purpose of elucidating the meaning of the Veda and with the View of settling its textual form. The particular work which came ultimately to be looked upon as the “ vedanga " re resentative of grammatical science, and has P . .

P i ever since remained the standard authority on Sanskrit $7 "L grammar in India, is Pan1n1's Aslmidhyziyfi, 1 so called from its “consisting of eight lectures (adhyziya), ” of four pddas each. For a comprehensive grasp of linguistic facts, and a penetrating insight into the structure of the vernacular language, this work stands probably unrivalled in the literature of any nation-though few other languages, it is true, afford such facilities as the Sanskrit for a scientific analysis. Panini's system of arrangement differs entirely from that usually adopted in our grammars, viz. according to the so-called parts of speech. As the work is composed in aphorisms intended to be learnt by heart, economy of memory-matter was the author's paramount consideration. His object was chiefly attained by the grouping together of all cases exhibiting the same phonetic or formative feature, no matter whether or not they belonged to the same part of speech. For this purpose he also makes use of a highly artificial and ingenious system of algebraic symbols, consisting of technical letters (anubandha), used chiefly with suffixes, and indicative of the changes which the roots or stems have to undergo in word-formation.

It is self-evident that so complicated and complete a system of linguistic analysis and nomenclature could not have sprung up all at once and in the infancy of grammatical science, but that many generations of scholars must have helped to bring it to that degree of perfection which it exhibits in Panini's work. 'Accordingly we find Panini himself making reference in various places to ten different grammarians, besides two schools, which he calls the “ eastern fpi-dnchas)" and “ northern (udanchas)” grammarians. Perhaps the most important of his predecessors was Sakatayanaf also mentioned by Yaska-the author of the Nirukta, who is likewise supposed to have preceded Panini-as the only grammarian ('uaiydkarana) who held with the etymologists (nairukta) that all nouns are derived from verbal roots. Unfortunately there is little hope of the recovery of his grammar, which would probably have enabled us to determine somewhat more exactly to what extent Panini was indebted to the labours of his predecessors. There exists indeed a grammar in South Indian MSS., entitled Sabddnuhisana, which is ascribed to one Sakatayana;3 but this has been proved* to be the production of a modern ]aina writer, which, however, seems to be partly based on the original work, and partly on Panini and others. Panini is also called Dakshiputra, after his mother Dakshi. As his birthplace the village Salatura is mentioned, which was situated some few miles north-west of the Indus, in the country of the Gandliaras, whence later writers also call him Salaturiya, the formation of which name he himself explains in his grammar. Another name sometimes applied to him is Salanki. In the Kathci-sarilszigara, a modern collection of popular tales mentioned above, Panini is said to have been the pupil of Varsha, a teacher at Pataliputra, under the reign of Nanda, the father (F) of Chandragupta (315-291 B.C.). The real date of the great grammarian is, however, still a matter of uncertainty. While Goldstuckers attempted to put his date back to ante-Buddhist times (about the 7th century B.C.), Professor Weber held that Panini's grammar cannot have been composed till some time after the invasion of Alexander the Great. This opinion is chiefly based on the occurrence in one of the Sfxtras of the word yavamini, in the sense of “ the writing of the Yavanas (lonians), ” thus implying, it would seem, such an acquaintance with the Greek alphabet as it would be impossible to assume for any period prior to Alexander's Indian campaign (326, B.C.). But, as it is by no means certain” that this term really applies to the Greek alphabet, it is scarcely expedient to make the word the corner-stone of the argument regarding Panini's age. If Pataijali's “great commentary ” was written, as seems most likely, about the middle of the 2nd century B.C., it is hardly possible to assign to Panini a later date than about 400 B.c. Though this grammarian registers numerous words and formations as peculiar to the Vedic hymns, his chief concern is with the ordinary speech (bhzishd) of his period and its literature; and it is noteworthy, in this respect, that the rules he lays down on some important points of syntax (as pointed out by Professors Bhandarkar and Kielhorn) are in accord with the practice of the Brahmanas rather than with that of the later classical literature. Panini's Sfxtras continued for ages after to form the centre of grammatical activity. But, as his own work had superseded those of his predecessors, so many of the scholars who devoted themselves 1 Printed, with a commentary, at Calcutta; HISO, with notes, indexes and an instructive introduction, by O. Bohtlingk (1839-1840); and again with a German translation (1887).

2 I.e. son of Sakata, whence he is also called Sakatangaja. 3 Compare G. Biihler's paper, Orient und Occident, p. 691 seq. A. Burnell, On the Aindra School of Sanskrit Grammarians. 5 Pdnini, his Place in Sanskrit Literature (1861). “See Lassen, Ind. Alt. i. p. 723; M. Müller, Hist. of A.S. Lit. p. 521; A. Weber, Ind. Stud, v. p. 2 seq.

to the task of perfecting his system have sunk into oblivion. The earliest of his successors whose work has come down to us (though perhaps not in a separate form) is Katyayana, the author of a large collection of concise critical notes, called ' K”-Va Vdrttika, intended to supplement and correct the Siitras, or -V"""° give them greater precision. The exact date of this writer is likewise unknown; but there can be little doubt that he lived at least a century after Panini. During the interval a new body of literature seems to have sprung up 7—accompanied with considerable changes of language-and the geographical knowledge of India extended over large tracts towards the south. Whether this is the same Katyayana to whom the Vajasaneyi-pratisakhya (as well as the Sarvanukrama) is attributed, is still doubted by some scholars# Katyayana being properly a family or tribal name, meaning “ the descendant of Katya, ” later works usually assign a second name Vararuchi to the writers (for there are at least two) who bear it. The Kathasaritsagara makes the author of the Varttikas a fellow student of Panini, and afterwards the minister of King Nanda; but, though this date might have fitted Katyayana well enough, it is impossible to place any reliance on the statements derived from such a source. Katyayana was succeeded again, doubtless after a considerable interval, by Patanjali, the author of the (Vylikarana-) Mahti-bhdshyaf' or Great Commentary. .p"""”f"”° For the great variety of information it incidentally supplies regarding the literature and manners of the period, this is, from an historical and antiquarian point of view, one of the most important works of the classical Sanskrit literature. Fortunately the author's date has been fairly settled by synchronises implied in two passages of his work. In one of them the use of the imperfect-as the tense referring to an event, known to people generally, not witnessed by the speaker, and yet capable of being witnessed by him-is illustrated by the statement, “ The Yavana besieged Saketa, " which there is reason to believe can only refer to the Indo-Bactrian king Menander (144c. 124 B.c.), who, according to Strabo, extended his rule as far as the Yamuna.1° In the other passage the use of the present is illustrated by the sentence, “ We are sacrificing for Pushpamitra ”-this prince (178-c. 142 B.c.), the founder of the Sunga dynasty, being known to have fought against the Greeks.1° We thus get the years 144-142 B.C. as the probable time when the work, or part of it, was composed. Although Patanjali probably gives not a few traditional grammatical examples mechanically repeated from his predecessors, those here mentioned are fortunately such as, from the very nature of the case, must have been made by himself. The Mahabhashya is not a continuous commentary on Panini's grammar, but deals only with those Sitras (some 1720 out of a total of nearly 4000) on which Katyayana had proposed any Varttikas, the critical discussion of which, in connexion with the respective Sfitras, and with the views of other grammarians expressed thereon, is the sole object of Patanjali's commentatorial remarks. Though doubts have been raised as to the textual condition of the work, Professor Kielhorn has clearly shown that it has probably been handed down in as good a state of preservation as any other classical Sanskrit work. Pataijali is also called Gonardiya-which name Professor Bhandarkar takes to mean “ a native of Gonarda, " a place, according to the same scholar, probably identical with Gonda, a town some 20 m. north-west of Oudh-and Gonikaputra, or son of Gonika. Whether there is any Connexion between this writer and the re uted author of the Yogasastra is doubtful. The Mahabhashya iias been commented upon by Kaiyata, in his Bhzishyapradipa, and the latter again b Nagojibhatta, a distinguished grammarian of the earlier part ofy the 18th century, in his Bh/.ishya-pradipoddyota.

Of running commentaries on Panini's Siitras, the oldest extant and most important is the Kciéikd l/fini, ” or “ comment of Kasi (Benares), " the joint production of two laina writers of probably the first half of the 7th century, viz. ga aditya Kafka and Vamana, each of whom composed one ali' (four Vflw adhyayas) of the work. The chief commentaries on this work are Haradatta Misra's Padamanjari, which also embodies the substance of the Mahabhashya, and Iinendra-buddhi's Nyzisa.” Educational requirements in course of time led to the appearance of grammars, chiefly of an elementary character, constructed F. Kielhorn, Kcityaiyana und Patanjali (1876). The Sangraha, a huge metrical work on grammar, by Vyadi, which is frequently referred to, doubtless belonged to this period. 8 E.g. A. Weber. Goldstiicker and M. Müller take the opposite view.

9 Part of this work was first printed by Ballantyne; followed by a lithographed edition, by two Benares pandits (1871); and a photo lithographic edition of the text and commentaries, published by the India Office, under Goldstil1cker's supervision (1874); finally, a critical edition by F. Kielhorn. For a review, of the literary and antiquarian data supplied by the work, see A. Weber, Ind. Stud. xiii. 293 seq. The author's date has been frequently discussed, most thoroughly and successfully, by R. G. Bhandarkar in several papers. See also A. Weber, Hist. of I.L. p. 223. “' Lassen, Ind. Alt. ii. 41, 362.

“ Edited by Pandit Baia Sastri (Benares, 1876-1878). W As it is quoted by Vopadeva it cannot be later than the 12th Century.

7 on a more practical system of arrangement-the principal heads under which the grammatical matter was distributed usually Modern being: rules of euphony (sandhi); inflection of nouns ammns (naman), generally including composition and secondary F ° derivatives; the verb (1Zkhyata); and primary (krid-anta) derivatives. In this way a number of grammatical schools1 sprang up at different times, each recognizing a special set of Sutras, round which gradually gathered a more or less numerous body of commentatorial and subsidiary treatises. As regards the grammatical material itself, these later grammars supply comparatively little that is not already contained in the older works-the difference being mainly one of method, and partly of terminology, including modifications of the system of technical letters (anubandha). Of the Chandra. grammars of this description hitherto known, the Chandravydkarana is probably the oldest-its author Chandra

Acharya having flourished under King Abhimanyu of Kashmir, who is supposed to have lived towards the end of the 2nd century, ” and in whose ri n that grammarian is stated, along with others, to have revived the study of the Mahabhashya in Ka§ hmir. Only rtions of this grammar, with a commentary by Anandadatta, hive, however, as yet been recovered.

The Katantraf or Kdlapa, is ascribed to Kumara, the god of war, whence this school is also sometimes called Kaumdra. The real Kiantm author probably was Sarva-varman, who also wrote the original commentary (vzitti), which was afterwards recast by Durgasimha, and again commented upon by the same writer, and subsequently by Trilochana-dasa. The date of the Katantra is unknown, but it will probably have to be assigned to about the 6th or 7th century. It is still used in many parts of India, especially in Bengal and Kashmir. Other grammars ar%the Sarasvati Prakriya, by Anubhiti Svarupacharya; the Sankshipta-sara, composed by Kramadisvara, and corrected by Iumara-nandin, whence called Jaumara; the Haima-vyzikaranaf by the Iaina writer Hemachandra (1088-1172, according to Dr Bhao it is also

$3511 Daji); the Mugdha-bodhaf composed, in the latter part ac ' of the 13th century, by Vopadeva, the court pandit of King Mahadeva (Ramaraja) of Devagiri (or Deoghar); the Siddhzinta-kaumudi, the favourite text-book of Indian students, by Bhattoji Dikshita (17th century); and a clever abridgment of it, the Laghu- (Siddhdnta-) kaumudif by Varadaraja. Several subsidiary grammatical treatises remain to be noticed. The Paribhashas are general maxims of interpretation presupposed S b Ml by the Sutras. Those handed down as applicable to " S My Panini's system have been interpreted most ably by $212, Nagojibhatta, in his Paribdshendufekharai In the case of "Muses rules applying to whole groups of words, the complete lists (gana) of these words are given in the Ganapatha, and only referred to in the Sitras. Vardham5.na's Ganaratnamahodadhif a comparatively modern recension of these lists (A.D. 1 140), is valuable as offering the only available commentary on the Ganas which contain many words of unknown meaning. The Dhatupathas are complete lists of the roots (dhatu) of the language, with their general meanings. The lists handed down under this title, ” as apparently arranged by Panini himself, have been commented upon, amongst others, by Madhava. The Ulltidi-S12ffG$ are rules on the formation of irregular derivatives. The oldest work of this kind, commented upon by Ujjvaladatta,1° is by some writers ascribed to Katyayana Vararuchi, by others even to Sékatayana. The oldest known treatise on the philosophy of grammar and syntax is the Vakya-padiya,11 composed in verse, by Bhartrihari (? 7th century), whence it is also called Harikdrika. Of later works on this subject, the Vaiyrikarana-bhzishana, by Kondabhatta, and the Vaiyakarana-siddhdnta-maijzisha, by Nagojibhatta, are the most important.

IV. LEXICOGRAPHY.-Sanskrit dictionaries (kosho), invariably composed in verse, are either homonymous or synonymous, or partly Didier the one and partly the other. Of those hitherto published, mes S5svata's Anekcirtha-samuchchaya, ” or “ collection of homonyms, " is probably the oldest. While in the later homonymic vocabularies the words are usually arranged according to the alphabetical order of the final (or sometimes the initial) letter, and then according to the number of syllables, Sasvata's principle 1 Dr Burnell, in his Aindra School, proposes to apply this term to all grammars arranged on this plan.

2 Professor Bhandarkar, Early History of the Dekhan, p. 20, proposes to fix him about the end of the 3rd century.

3 Edited, with commentary, by ]. Eggeling.

4 The Prakrit part edited and translated by R. Pischel. 5 Edited by .O. Bohtlingk (1847).

B Edited and translated by ]. R. Ballantyne. For other modern gammars see Colebrooke, Essays, ii. p- 44? Rajendralala Mitra, escriptizve Catalogue, i., Grammar.

7 Edited and translated by F. Kielhorn.

1 8 Edited by . Eggeling.

9 Edited by . L. Westergaard; also given in B6htlingk's edition of Panini.

1° Text and commentary, edited by Th. Aufrecht. Edited, with commentaries, at Benares.


12 Edited by Th. Zachariae.

of arrangement-viz. the number of meanings assignable to a word seems to be the more rimitive. The work probably next in time is the famous Amara-!l;osha13 (“ immortal treasury ) by Amarasimha, one of “ the nine gems, " who probably lived early in the 6th century. This dictionary consists of a synonymous and a short homonymous part; whilst in the former the words are distributed in sections according to subjects, as heaven and the gods, time and seasons, &c., in the latter they are arranged according to their final letter, without regard to the number of syllables. This Kosha has found many commentators, the oldest of those known being Kshirasvamin.14 Among the works quoted by commentators as Amara's sources are the Trikanda and Utpalini-koshas, and the glossaries of Rabhasa, Vyadi, Katyayana, and Vararuchi. A Kosha ascribed to Vararuchi-whom tradition makes likewise one of the nine literary “ gems ”-consisting of ninety short sections, has been printed at Benares (1865) in a collection of twelve Koshas. The Ablzidhzinaratnamzild,15 by Halayudha; the Viévaprakfisa, by Mahesvara (1111); and the Abhidhana-chint<ima1fii1“ (or Haima-kosha), by the Iaina Hemachandra, seem all three to belong to the 12th century. Somewhat earlier than these probably is Ajaya Pala, the author of the (homonymous) Nanartha-sangraha, being quoted by Vardhamana (A.D. 1140). Of more uncertain date is Purushottama Deva, who Wrote the Trikanda-fesha, a supplement to the Amarkosha, besides the H tiravali, a collection of uncommon words, and two other short glossaries. Of numerous other works of this class the most important is the Medini, a dictionary of homonyms, arranged in the first place according to the finals and the syllabic length, and then alphabetically. Two important dictionaries, compiled by native scholars of the last century, are the Sabdakalpadruma by Radhakanta Deva, and the Vachaspatya, by Taranatha Tarka-vachaspati. A full account of Sanskrit dictionaries is contained in the preface to the first edition of H. H. Wilson's Dictionary, reprinted in his Essays on Sanskrit Literature, vol. iii.

V. PROSODY (Chhandas).-The oldest treatises on prosody have already been referred to in the account of the technical branches of the later Vedic literature. Among more modern Pm d treatises the most important are the Mffita-sanjioani, a so 'Y commentary on Pingala's Sutra, by Halayudha (perhaps identical with the author of the glossary above referred to); the Vzitlaratmikara, or “ jewel-mine of metres, ” in six chapters, composed before the 13th century by Kedara Bhatta, with several commentaries; and the Cfthando-maihjari, likewise in~ six chapters, by Gangadasa. The Sruiabodha, ascribed, probably wrongly, to the great Kalidasa, is a comparatively insignificant treatise which deals only with the more common metres, in such a way that each stanza forms a specimen of the metre it describes. The Vifitta-darpana treats chiefly of Prakrit metres. Sanskrit prosody, which is probably not surpassed by any other either in variety of metre or in harmoniousness of rhythm, recognizes two classes of metres, viz. such as consist of a certain number of syllables of fixed quantity, and such as are regulated by groups of breves or metrical instants, this latter class being again of two kinds, according as it is or is not bound by a fixed order of feet. A pleasant account of Sanskrit poetics is given in Colebrooke's Essays, vol. ii.; a more complete and systematic one by Professor Weber, Ind. Stud. vol. viii. VI. MUSIC (Sangita).-The musical art has been practised in India from early times. The theoretic treatises on profane music now extant are, however, quite modern productions. M, C The two most highly esteemed works are the Sangita-, "S ° ratnakara (“ jewel-mine of music ”), by Sarngadeva, and the Sangitadarpafza (“ mirror of music ), by Damodara. Each of these works consists of seven chapters, treating respectively of-(1) sound and musical notes (sz/ara); (2) melodies (niga); (3) music in connexion with the human voice Qnrakirnaka); (4) musical compositions (prabandha); (5) time and measure (t¢ila); (6) musical instruments and instrumental music (o1idya); (7) dancing and acting (nfitta or nfitya). The Indian octave consists like our own of seven chief notes (s11ara); but, while with us it is subdivided into twelve semitones, the Hindu theory distinguishes twenty-two intervals (sruti, audible sound). There is, however, some doubt as to whether these érutis are quite equal to one another-in which case the intervals between the chief notes would be unequal, since they consist of either two or three or four srutis, -or whether, if the intervals between the chief notes be equal, the srutis themselves vary in duration between quarter-, third-, and semi-tones. There are three scales (grama), differing from each other in the nature of the chief intervals (either as regards actual duration, or the number of srutis or sub-tones). Indian music consists almost entirely in melody, instrumental accompaniment being performed in unison, and any attempt at harmony being conhned to the continuation of the key-note. A 13 Edited by H. T. Colebrooke (1808), and by L. Deslongchamps (1839-1845)~-14

A grammarian of this name is mentioned as the tutor of King Iayapida of Kashmir (A.D. 755-786); but Kshira, the commentator on Amara, is placed by Professor Aufrepht between the 11th and 12th centuries, because he quotes the Sabdanusfisana ascribed to Bhojaréja.

15 Edited by Th. Aufrecht (1861).

1” Edited by O. Bohtlingk and C. Rieu (1847). number of papers, by various writers, have been reprinted with additional remarks on the subject, in Sourindro Mohun Tagore's Hindu Music (Calcutta, 1875). Compare also Bh. A. Pingle, Indian Music, 2nd ed. (Bombay 1898).

VII. R1-1ET0R1c (Alankdra-fdstra).-Treatises on the theory of literary composition are very numerous. Indeed, a subject of this Rhetodg description-involving such nice distinctions as regards the various kinds of poetic composition, the particular subjects and characters adapted for them, and the different sentiments or mental conditions capable of being both depictured and called forth by them-could not but be congenial to the Indian mind. H. H. Wilson, in his Theatre of the Hindus, has given a detailed account of these theoretic distinctions with special reference to the drama, which, as the most perfect and varied kind of poetic production, usually takes an important place in the theory of literary composition. The Bharata~§ dstra has already been alluded to as probably the oldest extant work in this department of literature. Another comparatively ancient treatise is the Kdi/yz'idar§ a, ' or “ mirror of poetry, " in three chapters, by Danclin, the author of the novel Daéakurmiracharita, who probably flourished towards. the end of the 6th century. The work consists of three chapters, treating(1) of two different local styles (riti) of poetry, the Gaudi or eastern and the Vaidarbhi or southern (to yyhichlater critics add four others, the Paiichali, Magadhi, Lati, and Avantika); (2) of the graces and ornaments of style, as tropes, figures, similes; (3) of alliteration, literary puzzles and twelve kinds of faults to be avoided in composing poems. Another treatise on rhetoric, in Sfltras, with a commentary entitled Kdvydlankcira-vrittif is ascribed to Vamana of probably the 8th century. The Kzivyfilanlzcira, by the Kashmirian Rudrata, was probably composed in the 9th century, a gloss on it (by Nami), which professes to be based on older commentaries, having been written in 1068. Dhananjaya, the author of the Daéanipaf* or “ ten forms (of plays), " the favourite compendium of dramaturgy, appears to have flourished in the 10th century. In the concluding stanza he is stated to have composed his work at the court of King Mufija, who is probably identical with the well known Malava prince, the uncle and predecessor of King Bhoja of Dhara. The Dasarupa was early commented upon by Dhanika, possibly the author's own brother, their father's name being the same (Vishnu). Dhanika quotes Rajasekhara, who is supposed to have flourished about A.D. 1000,4 but may after all have to be put somewhat earlier. The SarasvaE-kanphdbharana, “the neck-ornament of Sarasvati (the goddess of eloquence), ” a treatise, in five chapters, on poetics generally, remarkable for its wealth of quotations, is ascribed to King Bhoja himself' (11th century), probably as a compliment by some writer patronized by him. The Kdvya-prakdfaf “ the lustre of poetry, ” another esteemed work of the same class, in ten sections, was probably composed in the 12th century-the author, Mammata, a Kashmirian, having been the maternal uncle of Sri-Harsha, the author of the Naishadhiya. The Srihitya-darpanaf or “ mirror of composition, ” the standard work on literary criticism, was composed in the 15th century, on thebanks of the'Brahmaputra, by Visvanatha Kaviraja. The work consists of ten chapters, treating of the following subjects:-(1) the nature of poetry; (2) the sentence; (3) poetic flavour (rasa); (4) the divisions of poetry; (5) the functions of literary suggestion; (6) visible and audible poetry (chiefly on dramatic art); (7) faults of style; (8) merits of style; (9) distinction of styles; (IO) grnaments of style.

VIII. NIEDICINE (Ayur-veda, Vaidya-ézistra).-Though the early cultivation of the healing art is amply attested by frequent allusions M did in the Vedic writings, it was doubtless not till a much later 9 ue' period that the medical practice advanced beyond a certain degree of empirical skill and pharmaceutic routine. From the simultaneous mention of the three humours (wind, bile, phlegm) in a varttika to Panini (v. 1, 38), some kind of humoral athology would, however, seem to have been prevalent among l)ndian physicians several centuries before our era. The oldest existing work is supposed to be the Chargka-sarrlhitzif a bulky cyclopedia in slokas, mixed with prose sections, which consists of eight chapters, and was probably composed for the most part in the early centuries of our era. Whether the Chinese tradition which makes Charaka the court physician of King Kanishka (c. A.D. IOO) rests on fact is very doubtful. Of equal authority, but doubtless somewhat more modern, is the Suérula (-samhitd),8 which Susruta is said to have received from Dhanvantari, the Indian Aesculapius, whose name, however, appears also among the “nine gems." It consists V ' Edited, with commentary, by Premachandra Tarkabagisa, Bibl. Ind.; with German translation by O. v. Bohtlingk (1890). 2 Edited by Capeller (1875).

3 Edited by Fitzedw. Hall, Bibl. Ind. (1865); with commentary (Bombay, 1897).

R. Pischel, Gott. Gel. A. (1883); G. Biihler, Ind. Ant. (1884), p. 29. 5 Edited by Mahesa Chandra Nyayaratna (1866).

° 'I'ext and translation in Bibl. Ind.; edited by Jibauanda Vidyasagara (1897).

" Edited by jibananda Vidyasagara (Calcutta, 1877). Cf. A. F. R. Hoernle, “ Studies in Anc. Indian Medicine ” (I. Roy. As. S. 1906-9). ° Edited by Madhusidana Gupta (1835-1837), and by Iibananda Vidyasagara (1873).

of six chapters, and is likewise composed in mixed verse and prosethe greater simplicity of arrangement, as well as some slight attention paid in it to surgery, betokening art advance upon Charaka. Both works are, however, characterized by great prolixity, and contain much matter which has little Connexion with medicine. The late Professor E. Haas, in two very suggestive papers, ” tried to show that the work of Susruta (identified by him with Socrates, so often confounded in the middle ages with Hippocrates) was probably not composed till after the Mohammedan conquest, and that, so far from the Arabs (as they themselves declare) having derived some of' their knowledge of medical science from Indian authorities, the Indian Vaidyasastra was nothing but a poor copy of Greek medicine, as transmitted by the Arabs. But even though Greek influence may be traced in this as in other branches of Indian science, there can be no doubt, ” at any rate, that both Charaka and Susruta were known to the Arab Razi (C. A.D. 932), and to the author of the Fihrist (completed A.D. 987), and that their works must therefore have existed, in some form or other, at least as early as the 9th century. Among the numerous later medical works published and greatly esteemed in India, the most important general com endiums are Vagbhata's Ashfdnga-hridaya, “ the heart of the eigliit-limbed (body of medical science), ” supposed to have been written in the 9th century, or still earlier; and Bhava, Misra's Bhdua-prakdéa, probably of the early part of the 16th century;, while of special treatises may be mentioned M§ .dhava's system of pathology, the Rugviniichaya, or Mddhava-Niddna, of the 8th or 9th century; and Sarngadhara's compendium of therapeutics, the Sdrngadharasamhild, composed before 1300, having been commented upon by Vopadeva. Materia medica, with which India is so lavishly endowed by nature, is a favourite subject with Hindu medical writers, the oldest treatise being apparently the Dhanvantari-nighanlu, of uncertain, but not very high, age; besides which may be mentioned Madanapala's Madanavinoda, written A.D. 1374; the more modern Rdja-nighantu, by the Kashmirian Narahari; besides other, still more recent esteemed works of this class, to which may be added the valuable medical dictionary Vaidyakaéabdasindhu by Umesachandra Gupta. A useful general view of this branch of Indian science is contained in T. A. Wise's Commentary on Hindu Medicine (1845), and in his History of Medicine, vol. i.” (1867); but the subject has since then been treated in a much fuller and more critical way in Professor J. ]olly's “ Medicin ” in Biihler's Grundriss der indoarischen Philologie.,

IX. ASTRONOMY AND MATHEMAT1cs.-Hindu astronomy may be broadly divided into a pre-scientific and a scientific period. While the latter clearly presupposes a knowledge of the researches of Hipparchus and other Greek astronomers, t

it is still doubtful whether the earlier astronomical and As:m°my astrological theories of Indian writers were entirely of 7;“he home growth or partly derived from foreign sources. matics From very ancient (probably Indo-European) times ° chronological calculations were based on the synodical revolutions of the moon-the difference between twelve such revolutions (making together 354 days) and the solar year being adjusted by the insertion, at the time of the winter solstice, of twelve additional days. Besides this primitive mode the Rigveda also alludes to the method prevalent in post-Vedic times, according to which the year is divided into twelve (sdvana or solar) months of thirty days, with a thirteenth month intercalated every fifth year. This quinquennial cycle (yuga), is explained in the Jyotisha, regarded as the oldest astronomical treatise. An institution which occupies an important part in those early speculations is the theory of the so-called lunar zodiac, or system of lunar mansions, by which the planetary path, in accordance with the duration of the moon's rotation, is divided into twenty-Seven or twenty-eight different stations, named after certain constellations (nakshatra) which are found alongside of the ecliptic, and with which the moon (masc.) was supposed to dwell successively during his circuit. The same institution is found in China and Arabia; but it is still doubtful whether the Hindus, as some scholars hold, or the Chaldaeans, as Professor Weber thinks, are to be credited with the invention of this theory. Professor G. Thibaut, " who has again thoroughly investigated the problem, comes to the conclusion that it is improbable that the nakshatra-theory arose independently in India, but that it is still doubtful whence the Hindus derived it. The principal works of this period are hitherto known from quotations only, viz. the Gdrgi Samhitd, which Professor Kern would fix at c. 50 B.C., the Ndradi Sarnhitci and others. The new era, which the same scholar dates from c. A.D. 250, is marked by the appearance of the five original Siddhantas (partly extant in revised red actions and in quotations), the very names of two of which suggest Western influence, viz. the Paitdmaha-, Surya-, “ Vasishtha-, Rornaka- (i.e. Roman) and Pauliéa-siddhdntas. Based 9 Z.D.M.G. (1876), p. 617 seq.; (1877), p. 647 seq. 1° See Professor Aug. Müller's paper, Z.D.M.G. (1880), p. 465. “ See especially Professor Whitney's essay on the Lunar Zodiac, m his Orienlal and Linguislie Studies.

12 G. Thibaut, “Astronomie, Astrologie und Mathemat1k, " in Biihler's Grundriss.

13 The Sfirya-siddheinta, translated by (W. D. Whitney and) E. Burgess (1860). V on these are the works of the most distinguished Indian astronomers, viz. Āryabhaṭa,[27] probably born in 476; Varāha-mihira,[28] probably 505-587; Brahma-gupta, who completed his Brahma-siddhānta in 628; Bhaṭṭa Utpala (10th century), distinguished especially as commentator of Varāha-mihira; and Bhāskara Āchārya, who, born in 1114, finished his great course of astronomy, the Siddhānta-śiromaṇi, in 1150. In the works of several of these writers, from Āryabhaṭa onwards, special attention is paid to mathematical (especially arithmetical and algebraic) computations; and the respective chapters of Bhāskara's compendium, viz. the Līlāvatī and Vīja-gaṇita,[29] still form favourite text-books of these subjects. The question whether Āryabhaṭa was acquainted with the researches of the Greek algebraist Diophantus (c. A.D. 360) remains still unsettled, but, even if this was the case, algebraic science seems to have been carried by him beyond the point attained by the Greeks.

On Sanskrit literature generally may be consulted Max Müller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature; A. Weber, History of Indian Literature; A. A. Macdonell, History of Sanskrit Literature.

(J. E.)

  1. It also shows occasionally other tense-forms than the perfect of the same periphrastic formation with kar.
  2. We might compare the different treatment in Sanskrit of an and in bases (mūrdháni-mūrdhnā̇; vādíni-vādínā); for, though the latter are doubtless of later origin, their inflection might have been expected to be influenced by that of the former. Also a comparison of such forms as (devá) devā̇nām (agní) agnīnā̇m, and (dhenú) dhenúnā̇m, tells in favour of the i- and u-vowels, as regards power of resistance, inasmuch as it does not require the accent in order to remain intact.
  3. J. Muir's Original Sanskrit Texts (5 vols., 2nd ed.) forms the most complete general survey of the results of Vedic research.
  4. The combination ch, used (in conformity with the usual English practice) in this sketch of the literature, corresponds to the simple c—as ṛi does to —in the scheme of the alphabet.
  5. Cf. P. Deussen, The Philosophy of the Upanishads (Edinburgh, 1906), where these treatises are classified; Jacob, A Concordance to the Principal Upanishads and Bhagavadgitā (Bombay S.S., 1891).
  6. Propounded in Note G of his India, What can it Teach Us?
  7. Ed. by E. B. Cowell (Oxford, 1893); trans. by the same, S.B.E.
  8. See G. Bühler, “Die indischen Inschriften und das Alter der indischen Kunstpoesie,” in Sitzungsber. Imp. Ac. (Vienna, 1890).
  9. Collected by F. Kielhorn, Ind. Ant. vol. 16.
  10. Edited with a Latin trans. by F. Stenzler; also text, with commentary, by S. P. Pandit; also repeatedly in India with and without translation.
  11. Text and Latin trans. of cantos 1-7 published by F. Stengler; an English trans. by R. T. H. Griffith; also several Indian editions, with comm.
  12. Text with comm. and Latin trans., edited by F. Benary; with Eng. trans., in verse, by W. Yates; also repeatedly ed. in India.
  13. Editions of this and the three following poems have been published in India.
  14. Māgha probably lived in the 9th century, though Bháo Dáji, in his paper on Kālidasa, would make him “a contemporary of the Bhoja of the 11th century.”
  15. Edited by G. Buhler.
  16. The Calcutta edition (1835) and that of A. Troyer, with a French trans., based on insufficient material, have been .superseded by M. A. Stein's ed. (Bombay, 1892), trans. by Y. C. Datta (Calcutta, 1898).
  17. Ed. and trans. Raj. Mitra, Bibl. Ind.; trans. S. Lefmann.
  18. Ed. E. Senart.
  19. Ed. H. H. Wilson; again (Bombay Skt. Ser.) pt. i., G. Bühler; ii., P. Peterson; freely trans. by P. W. Jacob.
  20. Ed. Fitzedw. Hall (Bibl. Ind.); with comm. J. Vidyāsāgara (Calcutta, 1874).
  21. Ed. P. Peterson (Bomb. S.S.); with comm. M. R. Kale (1896); trans. with some omissions, C. M. Ridding.
  22. Ed. J. Vidyāsāgara (Calcutta, 18825; with comm. (Jammu, (1879; Bombay, 1892); trans. E. B. Cowell and F. W. Thomas (1897).
  23. Cf. H. H. Wilson, Select Specimens of the Theatre of the Hindus (3rd ed., 2 vols., 1871); Sylvain Lévi, Le Théâtre indien Paris, 1890).
  24. Ed., in Kãvyamãlã (Bombay, 1894); by Grosset (Lyons, 1897).
  25. Edited, with a Latin translation, by C. Lassen; English translation by E. Arnold.
  26. Edited by F. Stenzler; with commentary, by K. P. Parab (Bombay), and several times at Calcutta; translated by H. H. Wilson; also into English prose and verse by A. W. Ryder (Harvard Or. Ser., 1905); German by O; v. Böhtlingk and L. Fritze; French by P. Regnaud.
  27. The Āryabhaṭīya, edited by H. Kern (1874).
  28. The Bṛihat-saṃhitā and Yogayātrā, edited and translated by H. Kern; the Laghu-jātaka, edited by A. Weber and H. Jacobi.
  29. A translation of both treatises, as well as of the respective chapters of Brahma-gupta's work, was published (1817) by H. T. Colebrooke, with an important “Dissertation on the Algebra of the Hindus,” reprinted in the Misc. Essays, ii. pp. 375 seq.