No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2011
It is well known that the ordinary theory of the Indian books, from the Institutes of Manu downwards, is, that the inhabitants of Hindūstan were originally divided into four castes, Brahmans, Kshattriyas, Vaiśyas, and Sūdras, who are asserted to have sprung respectively from the mouth, arms, thighs, and feet, of the Creator. It is true that in these books this theory is not consistently maintained, as we sometimes find a different origin assigned to the four classes. In one passage, the Mahā-Bhārata (xii, 6939) even goes the length of denying that there was at first any distinction of castes, and of affirming that all the world was formed of Brahma, and that, at a period subsequent to their creation, men became divided into classes according to their different occupations. In another part of the same great poem (i, 3138 f.) it is declared that the “descendants of Manu became known as Mānavas (or men); that men, Brahmans, Kshattriyas, and the rest, were sprung from this Manu.” These declarations are clearly inconsistent with the myth of the four castes having issued separately from the Creator's body.
page 406 note 1 See my “Original Sanskrit Texts,” vol. i, pp. 5f.; 11 f.; 14f.; 38 f.
page 406 note 2 Ibid., p. 35. For an account of various families, both of Brahmans and Kshattriyas, sprung from the same human ancestors, see the same work, pp. 45ff.
page 406 note 3 Ibid., p. 40. The words of the original are na viśesho' sti varṉānām sarvam Brāhmam idam jagat, Brahmaṉā pūrva-sisham hi harmabhir varṉnatām gatam. See also the Vāyu Purāna, cited ibid., p. 29, and the passage from the Bhāgavata Purāna, quoted in p. 48, in both of which places it is declared that castes did not exist in the beginning.
page 406 note 4 Ibid., p. 41. The original words are Manor vamso mānavānām tato 'yam prathito 'bhavat. Brahma-kshattrādayas tosmād Manor jātās tu mānavāh.
In the Sānkhya kārikā, verse 53, superhuman beings are said to belong to eight classes, creatures below men to five classes, but men only to one: ashṭa-vikalpo daivas tairyag-yonascha panchadhā bhavati, mānushyan chaika-vidhah samāsato bhautikah sargah.
page 407 note 1 See the remarks which had previously been made on this subject by Nève (Mythe des Ribharas, pp. 69–83), who dwells at length upon the fact, which he has well illustrated, of Manu being represented in the Rigveda as the parent of mankind, or specially of the Aryyas, and as the introducer of civilization. At the time (in 1847) when his work appeared, however, the first Ashtaka only of the R. V. had been published, and he was therefore unable to quote the passages relating to Manu which occur in the later books. His remarks, however valuable, do not therefore supersede the necessity of the fuller elucidation of the subject from more numerous texts, which I have here attempted. See also the late Dr. F. Windischmann'a Ursagen der Arischen Völker; Kuhn's Zeitschrift für Vergl. Sprachf., iv, 88 ff; and Ad. Pictet's Origines IndoEuropéennes, seconde partie, pp. 544f., and 612–632.
page 407 note 2 Sanskrit Texts, i, pp. 7–11.
page 407 note 3 This verse is quoted in the Nirukta, where the words Manush pitā “father Manu,” are explained as meaning “Manu the father of men.” Sāyana interprets them as meaning “Manu the father of all creatures.” In R. V., x, 82, 3, the words “our father and generator” are applied to Viśsvakarman, the creator of the universe.
page 408 note 1 I am indebted to Prof. Aufrecht for pointing out the meaning of this, to me, obscure verse; as well as for correcting my renderings of various other passages in this paper.
page 408 note 2 Compare R. V., x, 53, 6, quoted below.
page 408 note 3 Manor apatye. The Nirukta, 3, 7, gives Manor apatyam Manusho vā “the offspring of Manu, or Manush,” as one definition of man.
page 409 note 1 Viśpati. Compare R. V., vi, 48.8.
page 409 note 2 See Wilson's Diet., under the word Manu, which, as the second sense, is said to mean “a man in general.”
page 409 note 3 Ayashţur manushyasya, Sāyaṉa.
page 409 note 4 In iv, 1, 18, the words asmākam atra pitaro manushyāh may mean “our fathers descended from Manu.”
page 410 note 1 The first line of this Terse is as follows: “Thou, Agni, art the household-lord (gŗiha-patih) of all the people descended from Manush” (viśvāsām viśām mānushīnām); compare v, 8, 2; vi, 15, 1; vi, 15, 19; vii, 7, 4; viii, 23, 13; and iii, 29, 1. In vii, 5, 3, viśth asinīh, “black tribes,” are mentioned.
page 410 note 2 The words mānushā yugā occur in R. V., v, 52, 4; vi, 16, 23; x, 140, 6 (=S.V., 2, 1171.)
page 411 note 1 The compound word which I have rendered “ordained by Manu” is in the original Manur-hita. That the sense I have given is the true one, appears, I think, from i, 36, 19, where the same root, dhā, from which hita (originally dhita) comes, is used, joined with the particle ni. The same participle hita is used in vi, 16, 1, where it is said, “Thou, Agni, the offerer of all sacrifices, hast been placed, or ordained, among the race of Manu by the gods.” The compound manur-hita occurs also in the following texts, where, however, it has more probably the sense of “good for man,” viz.:‘—i, 106, 5. “Brihaspati, do us always good: we desire that blessing and protection of thine which is good for man.” (Sāyana says that here manur-hitam means either “placed in thee by Manu, i e., Brahmā,” or, “favourable to man.”) vi, 70, 2. “Heaven and earth, ruling over this world, drop on us that seed which is good for man.” x, 26, 5. “He (Pūshan) who is a kind to man, or, appointed by Manu,” &c.
In i, 45, 1, we have the words yajā svadhvaram janam manu-jātam, “worship, o Agni, the race (of gods), rich in sacrifices, sprung from Manu,” &c, which Sāyana explains, “generated by the Prajāpati Manu.” Benfey, in his translation of the R. V. (Orient und Occident, i, 398, note) says that the words may mean either, in the later sense, produced by Manu, as the creator of a mundane period with all its contents, or, in the older sense, established as objects of veneration by Manu, to whom the ordering of human life appears to be ascribed in the oldest Indo-Gennanic legends.”
page 411 note 2 Though the word manur-hita is here interpreted by Sāyana as meaning “placed by Manu Prajāpati who sacrificed,” it might also signify “friendly to men,” as Agni is also said to have been sent by the gods.
page 411 note 3 The Satapatha Brāhmana (i, 4, 2, 5), quoted by Weber (Ind. Stud, i, 195), thus explains the words deveddho Manv-iddhah:—“The gods formerly kindled it (fire): hence it is called ‘god-kindled.’ Manu formerly kindled it: and hence it is called ‘kindled by Manu.’” The Aitareya Brâhmana, however, explains the word Manv-iddhah from the fact that “men kindle it.”
page 412 note 1 In the following passage the words Manusho dharīmani are interpreted by Prof. Both as meaning “by the ordinance” of Manu (or man); but Sāyana assigns to dharīman the signification of “alter.”
i, 128, 1. “This Agni, an adorable invoker, has been born on the sacrificial hearth of Manu (or man), for the ceremony of the worshippers, for his own ceremony … The irresistible invoker hath sat down on the place of sacrifice, surrounded, on the place of sacrifice.”
page 414 note 1 The same work in the same passage thus explains the phrase, Bharata-vat. “He bears (bharati) the oblation to the gods; wherefore men say, Bharata (or ‘the bearer’) is Agni. Or, he is called Bharata (the ‘snstainer’) because, being breath, he sustains these creatures.” This phrase may, however, refer to the example of King Bharata. See below, p. 425.
page 415 note 1 In the following texts also Atharvan and Dadhyanch are spoken of, viz.:—i, 116, 12; i, 117, 22; i, 119, 9; vi, 47, 24; ix, 108, 4; x, 14, 6; x, 48, 2; x, 87, 12.
page 415 note 2 In the following passages also the Bhŗigus are mentioned as connected with the worship of Agni:‘mdash;
i, 60, 1. “Mātariśwan has brought Agni … a friend to Bhŗigu.”
i, 127, 7. “When the Bhŗigus, uttering hymns, aspiring to the sky, making obeisance, worshipped him (Agni),—the Bhŗigus drawing him forth from the wood, &c.”
i, 143, 4. “Whom (Agni) the Bhŗigus have obtained, the source of all wealth,” &c.
iii, 5, 10. “When Mātariśwan kindled for the Bhŗigus Agni, the bearer of oblations, who was in concealment.”
iv, 7, 1. “Whom (Agni) Apnavāna and the Bhŗigus kindled,” &c.
viii, 43, 13 (see above, p. 414).
viii, 91, 4. “Like Aurvabhŗigu, like Apnavāna, I invoke thee, pure Agni, who abidest in the ocean.”
x, 122, 5. “The Bhŗigus kindled thee by their hymns.”
See also i, 71, 4; iii, 2, 4; viii, 48, 18 (above p. 414); i, 148, 1.
page 416 note 1 In his illustrations of the Nirukta, p. 112, Professor Roth, in explaining the text R. V., vi, 8, 4 (“Mātariśwan, the messenger of Vivaswat, brought Agni Vaiśwanara from afar”) makes the following interesting observations on the Vedic conceptions regarding the genesis of fire: “The explanation of Mātariśwan as Vāyu” (which is given by Yāska) “cannot be justified by the Vedic texts, and rests only upon the etymology of the root śvas. The numerous passages where the word is mentioned in the R. V. exhibit it in two senses. Sometimes it denotes Agni himself, as in the texts i, 96, 3, 4; iii, 29, 4 (11?); x, 114, 1, &c.; at other times, the being who, as another Prometheus, fetches down from heaven, from the gods, the fire which had vanished from tho earth, and brings it to the Bhŗigus, i, 60, 1; i, 93, 6; iii, 2, 13; iii, 5, 10; iii, 9, 5. To think of this bringer of fire as a man, as a sage of antiquity, who had laid hold of the lightning, and placed it on the altar and the hearth, is forbidden by those texts which speak of him as bringing it from heaven, not to mention other grounds. As Prometheus belongs to the superhuman class of Titans, and is only by this means enabled to fetch down the spark from heaven, so must Mātariśwan be reckoned as belonging to those races of demigods, who, in the Vedic legends, are sometimes represented as liring in the society of the gods, and sometimes as dwelling upon earth. As he brings the fire to the Bhŗigus, it is said of these last, that they have communicated fire to men (e.g., in i, 58, 6), and Agni is called the son of Bhŗigu (Bhŗigavāna). Mātariśwan also must be reckoned as belonging to this half-divine race. I am not disposed to lay any stress on the fact, that in the passage before us (vi, 8, 4) he is called the messenger of Vivaswat; but to conjecture that the verse has become corrupt in the course of tradition, as Agni himself is elsewhere called the messenger of Vivaswat, the heavenly light (iv, 7, 4; viii, 39, 8, and elsewhere); and the same sense can be obtained here by the slight alteration of dūtah into dūtam.” (The sense thus becomes: ‘Mātariśwan brought from afar Agni Vaiśwānara, the messenger of Vivaswat.’) “Of these two senses of the word Mātariśwan to which I have above alluded, the first, according to which it denotes fire itself, appears to me to be the original one. Fire is swelling in his mother (mātari), proceeding forth from her (from the root śu, śvi, Benfey'a Gloss., p. 147), whether we regard this mother as the storm-cloud, or as the wood (araţi) from which by friction smoke, sparks, and flames proceed. It may also be mentioned that the same function of bringing down fire is ascribed in one text (vi, 16,13) to Atharvan, whose name is connected with fire, like that of Mātarisvan; and also that the Sisters of Atharvan are called Mātariśwarīs in x, 120, 9.”
page 417 note 1 In none of the passages hitherto adduced is any epithet except “father,” or “hero” applied to Manu.
In the 4th Vālakhilya, following R. V., viii, 48, however, this verse (the first) occurs:—“As in the case of Manu Vivaswat (Manau Vivaswati) thou, Sakra, didst drink the Soma which had been poured forth,” &c. (see Roth in Z. D. M. G., iv, 431). Manu Sāmvarani is similarly mentioned in the first verse of the 3rd Vālakhilya.
And in the following passage a personage called Manu Sāvarni, who appears to have been a contemporary of the author of the hymn, is celebrated for his generosity:‘mdash;
x, 62, 8. “Let this Manu now increase; let him shoot up like a sprout,‘mdash;he who straightway lavishes for a gift a thousand, a hundred horses. 9. No one equals him, who reaches at it were the summit of the sky. The liberality of the son of Savarnā is wide as the sea. 11. Let not Manu, the leader of the people, who bestows thousands, suffer injury. Let his bounty go on vying with the sun. May the gods prolong the life of the son of Savarnā; during which let us enjoy food.”
In this passage this Mann is represented as the son of Savarna, or Savarnā. In R. V., x, 17, 1, 2, the word Savarnā occurs, but it appears to be rather an epithet of the wife of Vivaswat, than her name.
“1. Twashtri makes a marriage for his daughter. This whole world assembles. The mother of Yama, being married, became the wife of the mighty Vivaswat. 2. They concealed her, the immortal, from mortals: making her of the same colour or nature (savarţā), they gave her to Vivaswat,” &c.
In later Indian mythology, Yama and Manu are regarded as brothers, the sons of Vivaswat, or the sun, by his wife Sanjnā. The Manu Sāvarni is, however, said to be another son of Vivaswat, begotten by him on another wife, Chhāyā, along with Śanaiśchara and Tapatī. Wilsons Vishnu. Pur., p. 266. This Mann Sāvarni is, according to the same authority, said to preside over the future eighth Manvantara, and takes his appellation of Sāvarni from being of the same caste (Savarţa) as his elder brother, the Manu Vaivaswata (p. 267).
page 418 note 1 This verse is quoted in the Nirukta, vi, 26, and is explained by Roth in hig illustrations of that work, p. 92. He remarks:—“It appears to me that the explanation of the word vŗika (wolf), as meaning ‘plough,’ though in itself possible … is, nevertheless, a rationalistic one, and that we rather have here an allusion to some myth. In viii, 22, 6, also we read, “For the pleasure of man ye have formerly in heaven ploughed barley with the wolf…That dhamantā has here its proper sense (of ‘blowing’), and consequently refers to a particular trait of the legend which is not otherwise known to us, cannot admit of doubt, if we compare ix, 1, 8, dhamanti bākuram dŗtim, ‘they blow the crooked (?) skin.’ Bakura, perhaps, denotes a crooked wind-instrument, which the Aświns employed to terrify their enemies, and bākura, as an epithet of the skin, might designate one in the shape of a bakura.”
page 420 note 1 The same contrast is drawn between the Áyus and Dasyus in vi, 14, 3:—“Overcoming the Dasyu, the Áyus, by rites seeking to vanquish the rite-less.”
page 421 note 1 This verse is translated by Prof. Benfey in his glossary to the Sāma reda under the word Namnchi.
page 421 note 2 In iii., 49, 1, mention is made not of the fire tribes, but of all the tribes: ‘Praise the great Indra, in whom all the tribes who drink soma have obtained their desire.’
page 421 note 1 I here follow Prof. Roth's rendering in his Dictionary, ii, 1077, under the root 2 chhad. In the Atharvaveda, xii, 1, 42, the words, these five tribes, also occur.
page 423 note 1 See Mahābhārata, iii, 14160, as referred to by Roth under jana, where the birth of a being of five colours, apparently a form of Agni, is described, who was generated by fire rishis, and who was known as the god of the five tribes (pānchajanya) and the producer of five races.
In some cases the panchajanāh seem to be gods, as in the following verses:— x, 53, 4,5. “Ye five tribes, who eat food, and are worthy of adoration, favourably receive my oblation.” See Nirukta, iii, 8, and Roth's illustrations, p. 28. See also x, 55, 2, 3, where the phrases priyāh pancha, and pancha devāh occur.
x, 60, 4. “In whose worship Ikshvāku prospers, wealthy and victorious, like the five tribes in the sky (divīva pancha kŗishţayah).
In iii, 20, 4, mention is made of the “divine peoples” (kshitīnām daivīnam;) and in vi, 16, 9 (see above, p. 411), the words divo viśiah, “people of the sky,” occur.
In Atharva veda, xi, 2, 9, there is a fivefold divison of animals:—“Thy (Rudra Paśupati's) five sorts of animals are thus divided, kine, horses, men (purushāh), goats, and sheep.”
page 425 note 1 See above, p. 414, note.
page 427 note 1 Weber's Indische Studien, i, 168 ff; Müller's History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, pp 425 ff; my Sanskrit Texts, ii, 325 ff.
page 427 note 2 In this passage Manu receives no title. In Book xiii, 4, 3, 3, of the same Brahmana, however, a King Manu Vaivaswata is spoken of, of whom men are the subjects.
page 428 note 1 I find that the same idea has occurred independently to M. Pictet, whose observations on this subject (Origines Indo-Européennes, ii, 616) I had not read when the remarks in the text were written.
page 429 note 1 In a note to a passage which I have quoted above, p. 407, from the Eigveda, ii, 33, 13, where Manu is said to have “chosen certain remedies,” Prof. Wilson remarks: “This alludes, no doubt, to the vegetable seeds which Manu, according to the Mahābhārata, was directed to take with him into the vessel in which he was preserved at the time of the deluge; the allusion is the more worthy of notice, that this particular incident is not mentioned in the narrative that is given of the event in the Śatapatha Brahmana.” See also the introduction to the Bame volume, p. x. The commentator, however, is silent as to any reference being made in this passage to the seeds taken by Manu into the ship; which, besides, are said to have been “all the seeds, as declared before by the Brahmans.”
page 429 note 2 Weber goes on (p. 195) to quote two texts of the White Yajur-veda, where he considers that Manu must be treated as a proper name, viz., xi, 66, “Hail to the Prajāpati Manu;” and 87, 12, “Thou art Mann's mare;” on which last text the Śatapatha Brahtnana adduces a myth in the following words, “This (earth) became a mare, and carried Manu.”
page 430 note 1 Translated by Weber, in the Journal of the German Or. Society, vol. 4, p. 802, who remarks in a note that this bull of Mann is compared by Dr. Kuhn to the Greek Minotanr; but that though the resemblance is at first sight manifest, considerable difficulties arise when the two stories are compared more in detail. See Kuhn's Zeitschrift für Vergl. Sprachf., iv, 91 ffGoogle Scholar.