HISTORICITY OF THE BHARATA WAR.

The historicity of the Bharata war and the probable date of its occurance have been subjects of keen controversy ever since indological studies began in the nineteenth century. Dr. D. C.

on the 14th of September 1975 that after all the Mbh. war was not such a big event and that much of the Mbh. story as we have it is a myth. He gave the following reasons for holding this view: (1) The strength of the armies as given in the epic lacks credibility; (2) there are no references to this war in the Vedic literature and the Puranas, nor does Kurukshetra figure in them as a battle-field; (3) there is no unanimous tradition about the date of this war among historians and astronomers and the dates usually assigned to it clash with the accepted time-bracket of the Indus Valley Civilization and the coming of the Aryans in India about the middle of the second millennium B. C.; (4) it is inconceivable that the eastern and the Southern States had taken part in this war as stated in the epic, as these States were unknown to Panini (5th cenrury B. C.). He, therefore, thought that people had originally little knowledge about this war, and thaf%nly after the Mbh. story gained considerable popularity with the growth of the epic, they started theorising about the date of the war etc. He concluded by saying that all the stories of ^ earlier digvijayas and empire-building described in the epic have to be regarded as belonging to the domain of mythology and folklore and not of history.

The negative arguments advanced by Dr. Sircar for doubting the historicity of the war have been ably met by P. L.

Bhargava in his recent article, “ A Fresh Appraisal of the Historicity of Indian Epics. We shall consider later his argument that there is no reference to this war in the Vedic literature and the Puranas. Another argument given by him is that historians and astronomers have assigned divergent dates to j the war. If this argument is held valid and applied to kings to whom the historians have assigned different dates, then as pointed out by Sircar, Kanishka or the Satavahanas will have to be regarded as mythical kings. If the dates assigned to the war clash with the accepted time-bracket of the Indus Valley Civilization, then it is a strong argument only for rejecting those dates which do not satisfy this test.

One of the arguments advanced by Sircar is that there are no references to it in the Vedic literature and the Puranas. The only battle mentioned in the Vedic literature is the Dasharajna) war in which the Aryan king Sudasa fought against a confederacy of ten kings. This is because two Vedic rishis, Vasishtha and Vishvamitra, happened to be directly involved in the war, as they championed respectively the case of Sudasa and the ten kirigs as their family priests. The later Vedic literature was entirely preoccupied with ritual and philosophy and took no interest either in the geneology of the kings or their dynastic wars. As pointed out by Bhargava, the vedic literature has taken n °te of only those kings who took an active part in an important r 'tual such as the horse-sacrifice or some philosophical I discourse and does not directly mention even those kings whose names were known from the patronymics or their sons.

Those who patronised the Vedic poets, ritualists and philosophers and gave them liberal gifts are also praised in hymns called danastutis i. e. eulogies of gifts. The main reason as to why there are no references to the Bharata war in the Vedic literature is that it was fought much later.

The Vaishampayana text itself, as reconstructed with the aid of the statistical study, deals only with the war and nothing much else. This in itself should remove any doubt on the point that the nucleus of the epic recorded a historical event. This point is enphasized quite a few times in the epic itself, which employs the words itivritta and itihasa to denote its contents.

Etymologically the word itivritta means ‘ it so happened ’, itihasa means ‘ it was so ’. Apte’s Dictionary also gives its meaning as heroic history (such as the Mahabharata). As Dr. R.

C. Muzumdar points out, Panini takes the word to mean the battle of the Bharatas. 1 In the epic itself Sauti mentions the Mahabharatayuddha in the Shanti (48.13) and the Ashvamedha (60.1) and so refers to the great battle fought on the Kurukshetra and testifies to the historicity of the war.

Although there are no references to the Kurus in the Rigveda and the Brihmanas, we find mentions therein of the ancestors of the Kurus. The Mbh. consistently recognises the royal family of the Kurus as the Bharata family. In the Rigvedic period, the Bharatas had scarcely advanced byond the region round the river Sarasvati, which came to be recognised as Brahmavarta, the holy land. It was only at a later date, that the country between the upper Yamuna and the Ganga and the district of Delhi came to be occupied by them. The Shat. Br.'

records the trimphs celebrated by Bharata Dauhshyanti after his victories in this region. According to the Ait. Br. 3 Bharata was annointed as king in a coronation ceremony by sage pirghatamas Mamateya. He is mentioned therein as a king, who had performed an ashvamedha sacrifice. In the epic, the Bharatas do not appear as one of the existing tribes, but the Kaurava princes are referred to as Bhaarata or Bharatanandanas i. e. as descendants of Bharata or as Bharatarishabhas or Bharatasattamas i. e. the best among the Bharatas.

In view of the fact that the Kurus occupied the same territory which was formerly occupied by Bharatas, Rapson 1 came to the conclusion that the region of the river Sarasvati which was occupied by the Bharatas in the time of the Rigveda came to be merged in the Kuru territory, which became famous in history under the name Kurukshetra; the land of the Kurus. This was the scene of the great war, the centre from which the IndoAryan culture first spread through Aryavarta and eventually throughout the whole sub-continent.

We also find references to some ancient kings of the Kuru race in the Vedic literature. In a hymn in the Rigveda (X.33), one Kurushravana is mentioned as a king of the Kuru tribe, along with some of his ancestors. In the same hymn he is also called Trasadasyava or a descendant of Trasadasyu, who is wellknown in the Rigveda as a king of the Purus. Another king Pakisthama is praised as a generous donor in the Rigveda (VIII.23) and is designated as Kaurayana. As there have been conscions efforts to trace the origin of the ancient royal dynasties to Manu, the mythical father of mankind, the early portions of these geneologies are of doubtful veracity. The geneology of the Kurus becomes somewhat more definite with Ajamidha, after whom both Dhritarashtra and Yudhisthira were called aajamidhas, his descendants. Ajamidha is also referred to in the fourth Mandala of the Rigveda (44.6). His s °n Riksha is probably the same as the one mentioned as a Patron in the danastuti in the eighth Mandala of Rigveda (68.14). Perhaps his son is referred to as Arksha in Adi by ^uti. 1 In the Atharvaveda a person called Kauravya is said to have enjoyed prosperity under the rule of king Parikshit. It is stated that this Parikshit was a king of the Kurus, whose kingdom flowed with honey and milk. We shall show later that this Parikshit was an ancestor of the Pandavas and not the grandson of Arjuna. Since only the ancestors of the Kurus find a mention in the Vedic and Brahmanical works, it is obvious that the Bharata war had taken place during the time of their successors.

In the Rigvedic period the Bharatas had scarcely advanced beyond the upper Jamuna and the Ganga, and the district of Delhi had come to be occupied by them. The Kurus, jointly with the Panchalas, find a prominent mention in the Brahmana literature and the authors of the Vedic Index (I165) are of the view that the great Brahmana works were composed in the Kuru-Panchala country. Eliot points out that at the time the Brahmanas and the earlier Upanishadas were composed, the principal political units in India were the kingdom of the Panchalas and the Kurus in the region of Delhi.

The Ait. Br. speaks of the countries of the Kuru-Panchalas as belonging to the Madhyadesha or the middle country. The Kurus occupied the northern portion of the Doab or the region between the rivers of the Yamuna and the Ganga, while the Panchalas held the rest of the Doab as far as the land of the Vatsas upto the confluence of the two rivers. Thus even in the Vedic periods the Kurus and the Panchalas figure as prominent tribes of the Indo-Aryan kshatriyas.

The geneology of the Kurus becomes somewhat more definite with Ajamidha. TheAtharvaveda mentions Parikshit as the king of the Kurus and states that his people flourished in his kingdom. The geneology as given by Sauti in Adi.89 runs as follows: Ajamidha-Riksha-Samvarana-Kuru-Avikshita Parikshita-Janamejaya. Both Zimner and Oldenberg recognise Parikshit as a real king, as in later Vedic literature king janamejaya bears the patronymic Paarikshita. It is mentioned in the Shat. Br. 1 that his son Janamejaya had unconsciously) incurred the sin of murdering a brahmin and had persuaded pevapi Shaunaka to perform the Ashvamedha sacrifice for him. This finds support in Shanti 146-147, which belongs to the Vaishampayana text. The same Brahmana further adds that ' this Parikshit had three more sons, Bhimasena, Ugrasena and Shritasena and calls them Paarikshityas. Further the Ait. Br. (

VIII.21) mentions that Tur Kavasheya, the family priest of Janamejaya had annointed him king by aindra abhisheka and had also taken part in the horse sacrifice of Janamejaya. Now Indrota Shaunaka and Tur Kavasheya figure in the Vedic Index } and so must have been anterior to Dhaumya, the family priest of the Pandavas. Again the capital of this Janamejaya is said to be Asandivat and there is not a shred of evidence that the name of this town was changed to Hastinapura later.

Thus the ancestors of the Kauravas and Pandavas find a mention in the Vedic literature. We shall now trace their lineage in the period subsequent to the Bharata war. Vaishampayana text tell us that after the death of Duryodhana, who was the last Kaurava warrior to be killed in the Bharata war, Yudhisthira ^ became the king of Hastinapura. This is supported by the Pali texts 2 according to which the ruling dynasty at Hastinapura belonged to the Yudhisthira gotta or the family of Yudhisthira.

The celebrated grammarian Panini also explains the derivation of the word Yudhishthira, evidently referring to the eldest Pandava and also refers to the devotees of Vaasudeva and Arjuna. 3 The author of Bharata, Vaishampayana, is attested as a historical person by Ashvalayana, who mentions in his Shrauta Sutras as an aacarya of Bharata. 4 Both the epics and the Puranas are in agreement that the junior line of the Kuru race begining with Yudhisthira ruled for thiry generations. We read in the Vayu Purana (99.275), that in the reign 0 f Nichakshu, fifth in the line of descent from Janamejaya, the city of Hastinapur was inundated with floods in the Ganga and the capital was then shifted to Kausambi. The Anguttara Nikeya mentions that during the sixth century B. C., there were sixteen states known as Sodashamahajanapadas including the Kuru and Panchala kingdoms (PHAI, p. 131).

The epic tradition too, which dates from the time of Vaishampayana, traces the origin of the Kurus to Puru in adhyaya 147 of the Udyogaparva. There the Kuru kings are said to belong to the lunar race, being the descendants of Soma, the moon-god. Puru is mentioned as the youngest among the five sons of Yayati, son of Nahusha, sixth in descent from Soma.

Although Yadu was the eldest son, he was full of hauter and disrespectful to his father Yayati, who therefore, gave his kingdom to Puru, who showed filial affection and obedience to him. In adhyaya 119 of the Dronaparva, Vaishampayana traces the lineage of Vasudeva, father of Krishna to Yadu, son of Yayati and Devyani, daughter of the Asura priest Shukra. Here it is stated that Yayati was the son of Nahusha, sixth in descent from Soma, but he is said to be the grandson of Pururavas, whom he mentions as the grandson of Soma and fourth in desent from Atri. The three adhyayas 79, 89-90 of Adi, have been added by later narrators, of which the first two adhyayas have been obviously added by Sauti. The adhy. 90 gives the geneology in material particulars and so seems to have been added later.

One of the arguments advanced by Dr. Sircar is that the historians and astronomers have assigned divergent dates to the war. If this argument is held valid and applied to kings to whom historians have assigned different dates, then as pointed out by Bhargava, Kanishka or the Satavahanas will have to be regarded as mythical kings. If the dates assigned to the war clash with the accepted time-bracket of the Indus Valley Civilization, then it is a strong reason for shifting the evidence and accepting that evidence which satisfies the above criterion.

Another strong argument advanced by Sircar is that the epic gives exaggerated accounts about the nature of the war, the types of weapons used, sizes of the armies on both sides and the magical devices employed by the demon warriors Ghatotkaca and Alayudha in their combats. 1 Here we must remember that what we have before us is not a dry historical chronicle of the war, but epic poetry commemorating the victory of the Pandavas in the war. The exaggerated accounts of the war may be dismissed as instances of hyperbole (atishayokti), which is recognised as a figure of speech in poetry. Further epic poetry all over the world is ‘ conspicuous for its length and its elevated heroic mood. ’ Although it differs from age to age, from language to language, from country to country and according to differing literary traditions, it exhibits certain common characteristics. Firstly in the epic tradition ‘ even minor incidents are exaggerated to heroic proportions. ’

Secondly ‘ even unrelated historical characters and events are projected on a common scene ’ without regard to their spatial or temporal settings. And lastly, ‘ historical incidents are fused with imaginary accessories, drawn from legend and myth in an inextricable patchwork of fact and fancy. ’ 2

The Puranas tell us that after Nicakshu shifted his capital to Kausambi, twenty-four Kuru kings from Nicakshu to Kshemaka reigned there. Udayana (Pali Udena), who was the twenty-fifth king in this line from Parikshit, lived in the times °f Buddha. According to the evidence of the Pah Canon, his contemporaries, were Chanda Pradyota, the king of Avanti, Prasenajit, king of Kosala and Bimbisara and then Ajatashatru, the king of Magadha. The Puranas further record that only four kings succeeded to the throne of Kosala after Prasenajit and only four kings succeeded to the throne of Vatsa after Udayana.

Thus it seems that Avanti, Kosala and Vatsa retained their independence for less than a century after Buddha’s death and lost it after their conquest by the first Nanda king.

1. This is also confirmed by the fact that ths adhyaya contains only five anusl Shlokas and is composed in prose.

We see from the Vedic Index that many of the important tribes which took part in the Bharata War existed in the Vedic period. We shall now show that they continued to exist jp later periods too. Among the sixteen States referred to in the Anguttara Nikaya, there were, besides the Kuru and Panchala, Shura^ena, Avanti, Gandhara, Kamboja, Kashi, Kosala, Cetiya (Cedi) and Vamsa (Vatsa). Panini refers to Yaudheyas, Bahikas, Trigartas and Kambojas. He mentions Yaudheyadi in his sutra 4.1.178, and Patanjali, the author of the Maha-bhasya, says that the term Yaudheyadi refers to Yaudheyas and Trigartas. According to him, Bahika was another name for the Punjab (4.2.117). In the Mayuravyamsakadigana, Panini speaks of the Kambojas as clean-shaven. He also mentions the Madras (2.3.73) and the Vrishnis and the Andhakas (4.1.114, 6.2.34).

In the time of Bimbisara, Pushkarasarin (Pali Pukkusati) was the king of Gandhara, who is stated to have sent an ambassador to him. He is said to have been threatened by the Pandavas, who had occupied'most of the Punjab and remained there as late as Ptolemy. In the latter half of the 6th century B. C. Gandhara was occupied by the king of Persia as seen from the Bahistan inscription of Darius and remained so until it was conquered by Alexander. 1

Bimbisara was, however, unfortunate in regard to his son Kunika or Ajatashatru, who put his father to death and usurps his throne. Ajatashatru, however, proved to be an energetic 1 ruler, who humbled Kosala and annexed Kashi or part of it as) also Vaishali. We read in the Majjhima Nikaya that Ajatashatru feared an invasion of his kingdom by Pradyota and so had fortified his capital. It was during the reign of Ajatashatru that both Mahavira and Gautama are said to have entered nirvana.

The Ceylonese aver that all the kings after Ajatashatru were \ also parrisides. The citizens drove out this family in anger and raised to the throne Shishunaga, who was then acting as viceroy at Benares. The most important achievement 'of Shishunaga was the destruction of the glory of the Pradyota dynasty. 1

The Shishunaga dynasty was supplanted by the line of Nandas. The first Nanda who was Mahapadma according to the Puranas and Ugrasena according to Mahabodhivamsha, usurped the throne of Magadha after killing the reigning king of the Shishunaga dynasty. The Jain tradition represents Nanda as the son of a courtesan by a barber. This tradition is confirmed by Curtius, who gives the pedigree of Alexander’s contemporary on the throne of Magadha. The puranas describe Mahapadma Nanda as ekarat i. e. the sole monarch of the earth and also as sarvakshatriyantaka i. e. the destroyer of all J Kshatriya kings. These epithets would suggest that he had overthrown all the dynasties which ruled contemporaneously with the Shishunagas, including the Kurus, Panchalas, Ikshvakus, Shurasenas etc. 2

The Nandas, however, did not make any attempt to conquer the States of northen India. This was left to a foreign 'evader, namely, Alexander of Macedonia. The accounts of Alexander’s conquests have been left to us by many historians j’fch as Arrian, Curtius, Plutarch, Strabo and Diodorus, who / a d accompanied him. Some of the kingdoms mentioned by these historians could be identified with those that existed in the times of the Bharata war. Thus Peukelatoes mentioned by Arrian represents Pushkaravati, which formed the western part of the old Gandhara kingdom. Strabo mentions the kingdom of Taxila, which is Takshashila, which formed the eastern part of the old Gandhara kingdom. The kingdom of Arsakes (Sk.

were probably offshoots of the old kingdom of Kamboja. The kingdom of old Poros, who gave a hard fight to Alexander, lay between the Jhelum and Chenab and roughly corresponded to the old territory of Kekaya. At this time the younger Poros, his nephew, ruled over the country between Chenab and Ravi, the old Madra kingdom. The Greek historians also mention.the Ambashthas, Diodorus calling it Sambastai and Arrian Abastanoi; they had settled down above the confluence of the Chenab and were a powerful tribe with a democratic government. 1

In the fourth century B. C. Chandragupta Maurya overthrew the last infamous king of the Nanda dynasty with the help of Kautilya, also known as Visnugupta or Chanakya, a brahmin of Takshashila. Kautilya 2 mentions in his Arthashastra that the Kamboja warriors lived by agriculture, trade and profession of arms. He describes the Kurus, Panchalas and Madras as rajashabdopajivinah i. e. enjoying the status of kings. The exact significance of this phrase is not known. However, we find an account given by Diodorus of the political constitution of Taula (Patala), a country situated in the Indus delta. In this community the command in war was vested in two hereditary kings, while a council of elders ruled the whole State with paramount authority. It is possible that at this time these States were ruled by elders, who enjoyed the status of rajas. 1 Plutarch tells us that after overthrowing the Nandas and liberating the Punjab from the prefects of Alexander, Chandragupta subdued the whole of India with an army of six hundred thousand strong.

However the exact number of provinces ini' Chandragupta’s kingdom is not known. 1

When Ashoka ascended the thro.ne 6f Magadha, the ancient kingdoms of Avanti, Vatsa and Kbkaja were already included in the Mauryan empire. In the early f years he followed his predecessors ’ policy of expansion within India and of friendly cooperation with foreign powers. Iri the thirteenth year of his reign he effected the conquest of Kalinga. Appalled by the senseless slaughter involved in the Kalinga war, he decided to base his authority not on military force but on the unifying force of a common dharma. We do not know the exact limits of the Magadhan empire in the days of Ashoka. Among the places which Ashoka mentions as forming part of his kingdom are Magadha, Kaushambi, Kalinga, Ujjain and Takshashila.

Beyond Takshashila his empire extended as far as the realm of Antiyoko Yonaraja, usually identified with Antiyochus II Theos of Seria (261-246 B. C.). He is stated tOibave sent missionaries to the kingdoms on the borders of his empire viz. Kambojas, Gandharas, Yonas etc. with the object of converting them to Buddhism. He celebrates their conversion to true dharma in Rock Edict XIII. 2

The Mauryan empire did not take long to disintegrate after the death of Ashoka. His attempt to unite the different sections of the population under a common Dhamma did not endure. The central authority became weak as it now lacked a strong military force. The last Maurya emperor Brihadratha was, according to the Puranas and Harshacarita, assassinated by his general Pushyamitra, who usurped the throne and founded the Shunga line of kings. Pushyamitra ruled from about 187 to 151 B. C. and his dominions extended to the river Narmada and included the cities of Patalipura, Ayodhya and Vidisha (modern Besanagar). During his reign the incursions of the Yavanas received a check, and there was an outburst of activity in the domain of religion and art. Inscriptions at Vidisha and Ghosundi testify to the growing importance and wide prevalence of the Bhagavata religion. We learn from the Besanagar inscription that during the reign of the fifth Shunga king Kashiputra Bhagabhadra, the Greek king Antalikhita (Antialkidas) sent to him Heliodorus, a native of Taxila, as his ambassador. This Ambassador, though a Greek, professed the Bhagavata religion and set up a Garudadhvaja in honour of Vaasudeva (Krishna), whom he described as the God of gods. 1

We learn from the Junagadha inscription of the Shaka king Rudradaman (130-150 A. D.) that his conquests extended to Sindhu-sauvira and even to the land of the Yaudheyas. The same inscription shows that his dominions included the countries of Avanti, Anupa and Anarta. Among the States which paid homage to Samudragupta in the fourth century A.D.

Fa Hien, a Chiense piligrim, who came to India in the fifth century A. D. visited Gandhara, Mathura, the capital of the Shurasenas, Sravasti, the capital of Kosala and Kausambi and the capital of the Vatsas. Another Chinese piligrim, Hsuan Tsang visited India in the 7th century A. D. He has left an interesting account of Gandhara after visiting it.^He knew Purushapura (Peshavar) as the capital of Gandhara and had also been to Takshashila, which he mentions as a dependency of Kashmir.

After visiting Shakala, the capital of Madras and Mathura, the capital of the Shurasenas, he visited Isipatana (modem Saranath)

in Kashi, where Buddha is said to have preached his first sermon after his enlightenment. He also went to Shravasti, but found that this once splendid capital of Kosala had lost its ancient glory.

When he paid a visit to Kausambi, the capital of Vatsas, he saw more than ten monasteries in or near about the town, but found all of them in utter ruin. But more importantly, as pointed out by Prof. V N. Datta, Hsuan Tsang, who had also visited Kurukshetra in 634 A. D. refers to a popular tradition regarding a terrible battle, which had taken place in the region of Thanesar in remote times and states that ‘ the entire area was covered with bones, which were still visible to him.' This supports a reference in the Puranas to Asthipura or a city of bones, which Cunningham has identified as the site where the cremation of those slain in the battle had taken place. 2

In the absence of epigraphic and numismatic evidence, the historian of ancient times has perforce to depend on indirect evidence, which, if sufficiently positive, cannot be brushed qside by negative arguments. To recapitulate, the following facts gathered from the Puranas appear to be sufficiently corroborated by Brahmanical, Buddhist and Jain literature and archaeological evidence. (1) Yudhishthira, who belonged to the junior line of the Kurus, became the king of Hastinapura and he and his descendants ruled first at Hastinapura and then at Kaushambi for thirty generations without any challenge from the descendants of the senior branch; this would not have become possible without the extinction of this senior branch in the war as stated in the Epic. (2) If we leave out of account the hyperbolic descriptions of the battles and the weapons, which are characteristic of epic poetry all over the world, we find that the four-fold nature of the army and the weapons with which this war was fought remained in vogue in later periods. In the excavations carried out at Atranjikhera, iron arrow-heads, spearheads and shafts have been found at the P. G. W. culture levels.

(3) Although this war started as a family feud between the Kauravas and the Pandavas, almost all the tribes which had strong family ties of cultural affinity with them took part in the war.

These tribes were real and existed from Vedic times, and they find a mention in the literature of the later periods also. (4) And most important of all is the fact that the original Bharata as disclosed.by these linguistic studies gives only an account of the war and hothing else. So it cannot be explained as a Panchama Veda, 1 because the encyclopaedic character of the present epic with its'ientral theme of Dharma and Niti is due entirely to later additiofife.

Dr. Sircar is, however, right when he says that all the stories of the earlier digvijayas as empire-building described in the Epic belong to the domain of mythology and folklore and not history.

The 'linguistic studies show that their accounts as given in the AshVamedhikaparva and the Sabhaparva have been added by Suta and Sauti respectively. His further statement that it is inconceivable that the eastern and southern States could have taken part in the war as stated in the Epic is also true. As we saw.

iri chapter VI, no prominent king or warrior from the East or &kith had fought in the war, and so all accounts of their having d6ne so are later interpolations. This is also indirectly supported by archaeological evidence as no site of the P. G. Ware culture, Which is associated with the Mbh. culture, has been found so far beyond the river Sadanira (Rapti) in the East and the Pariyatra mountains in the South. 2 3 This event is recorded in the Mausalaparva adhyaya 8, which discloses the Beta-style and has been added by the author of the Parvasangraha in the first century B. C?

While, therefore, many of the events described by the subsequent redactors probably belong to the domain of myths and folklore, nevertheless a few of them may contain some historical truth. For instance, the retirement of Dhritarashtra along with Gandhari and Kunti in the forest and their subsequent deaths in the forest conflagration may not be without some historical basis.

The civil war among the Bhoja and Vrishni tribes could also have taken place before the death of Krishna, as the seeds of dissension between them had already been-sown in the Bharata war with the Bhoja warrior Kritavarma and the Vrishni warrior Satyaki joining the opposite sides. The submergence of Dvaraka is also attested by the archeological excavations carried out by Sankalia in this town, but the date of its occurance is doubtful. Sankalia places this event in the second century B. C. This event, however, is recorded in the adhyaya 8 of the Mausalaparva, which discloses the Beta-style, while the remaining seven adhya-yas have been added by Suta. It is not beyond the range of possibility that above three verses have been added by Harivamshakara who telescoped the two events, namely the death of Lord Krishna and the submergence of Dvaraka in the sea in 200 B. C. to give them a supernatural flavour. 1 However this question would be set at rest only after oceanographic research is carried out into the remains of the ancient city in the sea.

Long before the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute completed its project of bringing out the first ever Critical Edition of the Mahabharata in 1966, the idea of writing an Epilogue was first mooted by Dr. S. K. Belwalkar. He had produced a detailed outline for the epilogue and included it in the Prospectus of the Critical and illustrated Edition of the Mahabharata issued by the Mahabharata Editorial Board in October 1951. He had raised therein the following questions:

(i) whether the kernel of the epic story was a real historical event and if so, (ii) what was the date of the first literary composition describing that event, the Jaya atributed to Vyasa and the text elaborated from it, which was known as Bharata attributed to Vaishampayana, the disciple of Vyasa; (iii) the possibility of the multiple authorship of the epic; (iv) and whether it would enable us to determine the flora and fauna of the country and the state of agriculture, transport etc. during the periods of the growth of the epic. The other questions suggested by Belwalkar were: (v)

the state of knowledge and the system of education prevalent in those times, (vi) the study of the social organisation, which opens up such extensive fields of enquiry as the division of the country, the institution of slavery, the caste system etc. This pad is based more or less on the suggestions made by Dr. Belwalkar and so I have dedicated the part II to him.

Although the war arose out of a family feud between Kauravas and Pandavas over their respective claims to rule over Hastinapura, it did not remain confined to the Kuru tribe and the tribes closely related to them. For the determination of the tribes which actually took part in the war, we shall have, for obvious reasons, to confine our attention only to those portions of the war passages, which belong to the Vaishanpayana text.

This is essential because much of the information contained in the Mbh. about the geography of the country and of interregional contacts among the tribes pertains to the Adi (excepting the three adhyayas 55-59), Sabha, Aranyaka and Ashvamedhika parvas, which have been added by later redactors.

Another tribe which is frequently mentioned is mlechchha, which is evidently used to designate the tribes within the country; for it is mentioned that Bhagadatta, the king of Pragjyotisha is referred to as mlechchha and he is also said to have ruled over two yavana kings (II. 13). As regards the participation of yavanas and shakas, B.C. Law (TAI, p. 84)‘

observes that as the yavanas and shakas did not appear in Indian history before the fifth and second century B.C.

respectively, the passages in which the mention of these tribes occur must be regarded as later interpolations. However, it is necessary to devise some objective method by which we can identify the tribes which actually fought in the war. We consider °nly those tribes which are mentioned in the Vaishampayana text to have taken part in the war and fought under a king or a w arrior from the start to the end. To this we must add a corollary that two neighbouring tribes might have elected to fight under one leader, for which the following instances may be quoted. The chedis arid the karushas fought under the chedi king Dhru.shtaketu, the Sindhus and Sauvieras fought under j king Jayadratha and the Vrishnis and the Andhakas fought j under the Vrishni warrior Satyaki.

At this time there were six northern tribes, namely yaudheyas, madras and bahlikas, as also kekayas, ambashthas and trigartas. These tribes took part in the Bharata war on the side of the Kauravas. We find the first three tribes grouped together in the Dronaparva. Cunningham identifies the Yaudheyas with johia rajputs and their country Johiapar (yaudheyapura), the district round Multan. According to a passage in the Critical Edition (VII. 30.35), the bahlikas seem to have lived between Sultej and the Indus. This passage also states that the bahlikas were also known as arattas and jartikas (jats) and that their capital was Shakala, modern Sialkot. The madras, according to Law, occupied the region between Chinab and Ravi.

The Yaudheyas, who perhaps fought under the Madra king Shalya, were defeated by Arjuna, (VII. 18, VIII.4). The bahlika king Somadatta and his valiant son Bhurishrava fought on the side of Kauravas. The bahlika king is said to be a descended of the Kuru king Pratipa (Pratipeya, V.23) or Kauraveya (VII. 114). Somadatta was killed by Bhima (VII. 132) and Bhurishravca was killed by Satyaki (VII. 118). The reason as to why Shalya, maternal uncle of the Pandavas fought on the side of the Kauravas, is not clear. Suta's explanation that while he was on his way to the Pandavas, he was royally entertained by Duryodhana and so promised him his support, is hardly convincing. Shalya became the last general of the Kauravas and was killed by Yudhisthira in a striaght fight (IX. 16).

Of the three remaining northern states, the kekaya territory, according to Valmiki lay beyond Vidisha (Beas) an extended upto the Gandhara kingdom and its metropolis was Rajagriha or Girivraja, which was different from the Girivraja of the Magadha kingdom. According to Rajataranigini (V. 144)

t he ambashthas occupied the region not far from Kashmir, ^emachandra's Abhidhanacindtamani says, that the Trigarta country is the same as Jallundar, and epigraphic evidence also points to the same fact.

The kekayas fought on both sides, their king Suvarma and his brother Anuvinda fighting qn the side of the Kauravas and the kekaya prince Brihatkshatra and his-four brothers fighting on the side of the Pandavas. Brihatkshetra was killed in the battle by Drone (VII. 101) and the kekaya king and his brother were slain by Satyaki (VIII.9). The ambashthas took the side of the Kauravas and their king Shrutayu was killed by Arjuna (VII.68). The Trigarta heroes known as Samshaptkas, who were bound by an oath to kill Arjuna, gave him a hard fight.

Their king Susharma fought a stiff battle with Arjuna and was finally slain by him (IX.26).

At this time there were on the northern frontiers of India two prominent tribes, the gandharas and kambojas. It is now generally accepted that Gandhara denotes the region comprising, the modern districts of Peshavara in the N. W. F.

province and that Ravalapindi which lies in Pakistan. Kamboja is constantly associated with Gandhara in the Mbh. and so that country too must have been located in some part of North India close to Gandhara. Scholars differ about the location of Kamboja, which like Gandhara, was also famous for its horses and blankets. Sir Charles Eelrot thought that the. Kambojas were probably tibetans, which finds support in the Nepalese tradition which applies the name Kambojadesha to Tibet. The Mbh. however, includes the Kamboja country along with Gandhara in the Uttarapatha i.e. far north of India and connects 11 with a place called Rajapura. From the association of the kambojas with the Gandharas, this Rajapura could be identified with the territory of that name mentioned by Hsuan 4sang'? which lay to the south or the south-east of Punch. The es tern boundaries of Kamboja must have reached Afganistan.

Like their neighbours the kambojas, the gandharas reared pedigree horses and fought for the most part on horseback, Shakuni, the gandhara prince, being the maternal uncle of the Kauravas, played a key-role in the Bharata war and the gandhara troops led by him made a powerful division of the Kaurava army. He and his son Uluka were killed by Sahadeva in the war (IX.27). The Kambrijas were also the allies of the Kauravas and seem to have been consistently in the thick of the battle. Their king Sudarshana was killed in a single combat by Arjuna (VII.67).

The Western tribes which took part in the war were the sindhu-sauviras, the anupas and the shurasenas and vrishnyandhakas. The sindhu-Sauvira country formed part of the lower Indus valley. The Shurasena country had originally its capital at Mathura, which had been a famous city from early times. After Krishna killed the Bhoja king Kamsa of Mathura, the Magadha king Jarasandha laid seige to Mathura with a large army to avenge the death of his son-in-law. The vrishnis and andhakas, in order to avoid trouble, left Mathura and established their capital at Dvaraka. The bhojas or shurasenas also seem to have left Mathura and settled down in the Anarta country, for a passage in Karnaparva (VIII.4) mentions that Kritavarma, a bhoja warrior, was a resident of the Anarta country. This Anarta country must, therefore, have been nearabout Dvaraka. Anupa literally means a marshy tract not lying very far from the sea.

The saindhavas and sauviras played an important part in the Bharata war under the leadership of Jayadratha, who fought for the Kauravas, being the husband of Duryodhana's sister Dushilaa. He had taken a leading part in isolating Abhimanyn from his supporting warriors and killing him. When Arjuna returned after killing the samshaptakas, he learnt about the death of his son and the part played by Jayadratha in bringing that about and vowed to kill him. He fulfilled his vow by kill' 11?

{ VII. 121). The king of Anupa was a friend of Bhima and fought on the side of the Pandavas and was killed by ^shvatthama (VII.30).

The shurasenas and the vrishnyandhakas claimed deseent from Yadu, son of Yayati by Devayani, daughter of asura priest Shukra and so were known as Yadavas. This tribe was also commonly known as satvata, its clans being distinguished by different names such as shurasenas, vrishnis and andhakas.

Probably the killing of Kamsa by Krishna caused a rift between the two clans and resulted in their taking opposite sides in the Bharata war. Kritavarma joined the Kauravas with a division of troops and fought many valiant bettles with the Pandava warriors, especially Satyaki. Satyaki, a Vrishni warrior was, on the other hand, a friend and disciple of Arjuna and so fought on the side of the Pandavas. Both survived the war, but only to perish in the internecine war which arose among the Yadava clans thirty-six years after the Bharata war (XVI.4).

Turning to the middle country (Madhyadesha) there were the panchalas, the shalvas and the matsyas. The panchalas were next to the kurus in importance and were connected with the Vedic civilization of the Brahmana period. In the epic period, the Panchala country comprised Rohilkhinda and a part * of central Doab. It was divided at this time into two kingdoms, the river Bhagirathi forming the dividing line. The Northern Panchala had its capital at Ahichchhatra which, according to V.

Southern Panchala had its capital at Kampilya, which Cunningham identified with Kampila on the old Ganga between Budeon and Farokhabad. The shalvas and matsyas Wer e important tribes from ancient times and were often referred to as a dual group shalva-matsyas. The capital of Matsyas has been identified by Cunningham with Bairat in the former Jaipura State and so the shalvas probably occupied the ter ntory of the former princely State of Alvar.

During the Bh'arata war the Panchala King Drupada, being the father-in-law of the Pandavas, took their side and contributed a-division of troops to their army. Both his son Shikhandi and Dhrishtadyumna fought in the war and the latter was given the command of the Pandava army. Drupada was killed by Drona in battle (VII: 161) and his sons were killed in the massacre perpitrated by Ashvatthama on the last day of the war. Two other Panchala warriors who fought in the war were Yudhamnyu and Uttamauja. The shalvas fought on the side of the Kauravas and their mighty king Ugraseria met his death at the hands of Satyaki (IX. 19). As the daughter of king Virata was married to Arjuna's son Abhimanyu, king Virata and his two sons Shankha and Uttara joined the Pandava army and laid their lives on the battle-field. King Virata was killed by Drona (VII. 161).

To the South of the Panchala country were the kingdoms of dasharnas, the avantis and the chedis. The dasharnas dwelt on the river Dasan (Dhasant) in Bundelkhanda. Avanti roughtly corresponded to Ujjain region divided into two parts.

The northern part drained by the river Shipras had its capital at Ujjaini (modern Ujjain), while the southern part Avanti had its capital at Mahishmati. It seems that the matsyas were the immediate neightours of chedis on the west and Kashis on the east. According to D. R. Bhandarkar, Cheta or Chedi corresponded roughly to modern Bundelkhanda. The epic also frequently mentions the karushas along the matsyas; the kashis and the chedis. According to Pargiter, the country of the karushas lay to the south of Kashi arfd Vatsa, between Chedi on the west and Magadha on the east enclosing the Kaimur hills;

The dasharnas figure in the Mbh. as one of the tribes who fought on the side of the Pandavas. The Dasharma king at this time was Kshatradeva, who fought valiantly on elephant bach (VI.91). The avantis formed a powerful kshatriya clan in th*epic time. Their dual rulers, Vinda and Anuvinda, contribute each a division of troops to the Kaurava forces. They are designated as maharathas and figure very prominently in many battles of-the Bharata war. They finally met their deaths at the hands of Arjuna (VII.74). The Chedi king, who became prominent in the epic period was Shishupala, son of Damaghosha by Shutashravaa, sister of Vasudeva. Though he was related to Krishna, he joined Kamsa and Jarasandha who were enemies of Krishna and became the latter's general. His son Dhrishtaketu, however, who had succeeded to.the throne of Chedi after his father's death joined the Pandavas and led one complete, division. It is stated in the epic that the chedis, the kashis and ka'rushes were led by Dhrishtaketu, who was killed by Drona (VII. 101).

To the south-east of Hastinapura lay the kingdoms of Kashi, Kosala and Vatsa. Kashi was the ancient name of the kingdom which had its capital at Varanasi, modern Banaras.

The Vatsa country was located round about Kaushambi, which Cunningham has identified with Kasam not far from Allahabad. According to the Cambridge History of India (Vol.

I, pp. 308-309), Kosala lay to the east of the Kuru and Panchala lands and to the west of the Videha country, from which it was separated by the river Sadanira, probably the great Gaudaka;

The kashis and the vatsas are said to have taken part in the war on the side of the Pandavas. Perhaps both the kashis and vatsas were led by Dhrishtaketu as the king of Vatsa is not separately mentioned. The kosala kings belonged to the solar race, with Ikshvakus as their eponymous anecestor. In the Vedic literature, however, the ikshvakus are said to be originally a branch ©f the Purus. Brihadbala was the king of Kosala at this brne and he embraced the cause of Kauravas. We read in the ^ronaparva (51) that he was killed by Abhimanyu.

Epilogue of Mahabharata Another powerful king who sided with the Kauravas was Bhagadatta, who ruled over the kingdom of Pragjyotisha.

Pragjyotisha literally means ' lighted from the east' and so with the march of Aryana civilization in the east, it came to be identified later with the eastermost part of India, namely Kamarupa or Assam. The epic speaks of it as a country situated in the north of India (11.23). According to Law the mountainous regions called Antargiri, Bahirgiri and Upagiri in the Mbh. (11.24) appear to comprise the bwer slopes of the Himalayas and the Nepal terraim and it is not unlikely that the pragjyotishas lived contiguously, as Bhagadatta is called shailalaya i.e. one who has his abode in the mountains.

Bhagadatta is often mentioned in respectful terms and is said to be equal of Indra in valour (VI.91). There are many stirruing, descriptions of his duels with the Pandava warriors. He gave a hard fight to Arjuna, but was finally killed by him (VII.28).

To the east of the river Gandaka, lived the videhas and the magadhas and still further lived the angas, vangas and the kalinagas. They find specific mention only in the later redactions of the epic, such as the compaigns undertaken by the Pandavas in connection with the Rajasuya and Ashvamedha sacrifices. The Vaishampayana text does not mention the name of the king of Videha, and although there are a few stray references to the king of Magadha having fought in the war, he is said to be Jayatsena, son of Jarasandha, and not his descendant Sahadeva, who was a- contemporary of the Kauravas, There is also not much of evidence of the king of Vangas as having fought in the war and the references to the part played by the king are few and far between. There is no reference to these kings in the Bhismaparva (43) which gives the names of the warriors who were present at the start of the war. They also do not find any mention in adhyayas 162-168 o the Udyogaparva (added by Suta) in which Bhishma is said to have assessed the worth of the warriors on both sides. This clearly proves that the tribes to the east of the river Sadanira or Rapti had not taken part in the war.

Even when we confine over attention to the Vaishampayana text, a large number of tribes is stated to have taken part jn the war including the yavanas and shakas. As regards the participation of the yavanas and shakas in the Bharata war. Dr.

R. G. Bhandarkar observes: “ These people were outside the kingdom of Antioccus Theo. Coins similar to those of the earliest types of Athens are known to have been collected from the N. W. Frontiers of India. They bear the head of Athens on the obverse and owls on the reverse. ” He, therefore, concludes that the original owls of Athens have been assigned to 554-560

B. C. a Greek colony may have been established near India about 550 B. C. B. C. Law (Tal. p. 84) observes that as the yavanas and shakas did not appear in Indian history before the fifth and the second century B. C., the passages in which the mention of these tribes occurs must be regarded as later interpolations.

This account of epic geography will not be complete without the metion of two important geographical events which took place during the epic period. One is the disappearance of the river Sarasvati and the other was the influx of yavanas in this country. In the Rigvedic period the Bhaaratas had scarcely advanced beyond the country of the river Sarasvati which came t0 be remembered afterwards with special veneration as Brahmavarta, the holy land. It was only at a later date that the c °untry between the Yamuna and the Ganga and the district Delhi came to be occupied by them. Rapson came to the conclusion that the Bhaaratas, who were settled in the country °f the river Sarasvati in the time of Rigveda (III. ii. 3, 4) were ^ er ged in the Kurus and this whole territory, new together with e °ld, became famous in history under the name Ur ukshetra - the field of the Kurus.

According to B. C. Law 1 Sarasvati and Drishadvati were two historical rivers of Uttarapatha that flowed down independently without belonging to the Indus group. Manu locates the region Brahmavarta between these two sacred streams. The Sarasvati is described in Milindapanha as a Himalayana river and its source is traceable to the Himalayan range above the Simla hills. The Mbh. states that this river;

and flows between Shatadru (Sutlaja) and the Yamuna and adds that it is not improbable that Sarasvati was known to the Vedic people as a mighty river, which flowed into the sea.

We have fixed the age of Vaishampayana’s Bharata as the tenth century B. C. The Indian heroic age may,, therefore, be taken to be almost contemporaneous with the Greek heroic age, for as stated by Chadwicks (pp. 174-183) the evidence of tradition seems to bring the Greek heroic age to the close of the eleventh century B. C. Since the Teutonic, Welsh and Russian heroic poetry belonged to the period after the fourth century A.

D., they are not strictly comparable with the Greek or Indian heroic poetry. This chapter is based on the excellent works of two authors, N. K. Sidhanta 1 and H. Monro Chadwick and N, Korshav Chadwick. 2 I am grateful to Dr. A. M. Ghatge, then Secretary, Bhandarkar Oriental Institute for bringing the work °f the latter authors to my notice.

Vaishampayana tells us categorically that his epic is a historical work called Jaya and it ought to be heard by one who desires victory in war. 3 As stated before this term descibes later ln Udyogaparva (134-17) the episode known as Vidura..nushasana added by him. This is the story of the dowager queen Vidura, who in a true kshatriya spirit, exhorted her son to fight again manfully and wrest his kingdom back from his enemy, which he did. When Krishna called upon Kunti before the war and asked for a message from her to her sons, she said that he should tell the Pandavas as from her that they should fight like kshatriyas and regain their kingdom from the Kauravas. It is to be noted that while telling this story, Kunti describes it as jaya and says that whoever recites it would win victory and conquer the world. We saw earlier that Vyasa did not compose a work called Jaya. In this connection, Sukthankar observes 1 that perhaps Jaya is a technical term applicable to a certain class of literary works and not the specific name of Vyasa s work, as is commonly supposed. Jaya seems to be a technical term for heroic poetry and its recitation is said to engender the heroic spirit in the listeners and enthuse them to win the war. It would be interesting to see how far the Bharata of Vaishampayana possesses the features of heroic poetry, when compared with the Greek heroic epics Iliad and Odyssey.

contemporaneous with the Greek heroic age. As Sidhanta has I pointed out the evidence of tradition seems to bring the end of J the latter period towards the close of the eleventh century before Christ 2 and similar evidence points to the middle of the eleventh century for the end of the Indian heroic poetry. Prof. Chadwick sums up the conditions requisite for a heroic age in the phrase, “ Mars and the Muses. ” (See HA. pp. 440 fn.). We should be thankful to Vaishampayana and the bards Suta and Sauti for the preservation of the Indian heroic tradition.

Poems of war are not unknown in ancient Sanskrit literature, for instance, in the Rigveda, there is a hymn (VII. 18)

which describes the victory of King Sudasa over ten rivals and the defeat of Shambara by Divodasa, which finds a repeated mention. But we get the best sample of heroic poetry in the description of a horse-sacrifice in the Shat. Br. (XIII. 1.6), where we are told that a brahmin sings by day and a kshatriya by night; they play on the lute and sing; the brahmin sings of topics such as ‘ sacrifices he offered - such gifts he gave, but the kshatriya sings, such a war he waged, such a battle he won. ’

What this kshatriya was singing may be said to belong to the stage I of heroic poetry. 1 In the epic we get definite evidence of narrative poetry, and we are told that the Bharata was recited by Vaishampayana in the court of Janamejaya, the great-grandson of the Pandava hero Arjuna. Further evidence for the transmission of narratives as songs is to be found in the nature of particular descriptions. A good example is found in the gambling scene of adhyaya II, but the most important instance is that Vaishampayana describes the main story as a heroic poem (jaya). Sidhanta further remarks that the task of the critic of the Indian heroic age is made difficult by the accretion of different layers upon the main story of the epic. What was purely a heroic poem has been transformed into a fifth Veda and the spiritual interest is often made more prominent than the worldly.

However, it has been possible to separate the original poem of Vaishampayana by the statistical method (See chapter m).

According to the statistical study, Valmiki’s original Ramayana has recorded a fairly true picture of the battle that took place and the types of weapons used by the contending parties. Siddhanta (89) says that the Ramayana is far removed from the heroic plane, as the story proceeds in the regular narrative fashion and not in the form of questions and answers.

He adds that in Valmiki’s Ramayana, speeches take up a much smaller portion of the whole and even though there are °ccasional expressions of heroic sentiments, the lust of glory and the passion for war are makedly absent in it. He further observes that when faced with disaster, Rama does not show the burning passion for vengence, but wastes his time in weak complaints and religious reflection. Thus though the original Ramayana satisfies some of the charateristics of heroic poetry such as the anonymity of its author and the interest of the poem in the fortunes of the individual heroes, it is described by the authors of the Mbh. not as heroic poetry (jaya) but as adikavya.

As the ancient story goes, when Valmiki beheld a pair of Kraunch birds being killed by a fowler, his grief unconsciously took the form of a verse. 1 Subsequently he was told by Brahmaa to compose the life of Rama and thereafter he came to be known as Adikavi and his Ramayana as adikavya.

The two Greek epics and the earliest phase of Teutonic poetry represented by the English heroic epic Beowulf are primarily narrative poems. They are stories of adventure, not so much concerned with the fortunes of nations as with individual heroes and their heroic deeds. The interest in Iliad and Odyssey is not to advance any Greek cause or to annex any new territory.

In view of the importance attached to personal honour and glory, it is not surprising to find that personal wrongs, especially insults and outrages to dignity, are among the most prolific sources of strife. Such is the case not only with the quarrel between Achilles'and Agamemnon, which forms the subject of Iliad, but with the siege of Troy itself. Another cause is the abduction of women and plundring of cattle. This is the main theme of Odyssey in which Odyssus'is said to have abducted women and plundered the cattle of Cicones. 2 As regards the Indian epic Bharata, the Bharata war was also not undertaken to advance any Aryan cause or to annex any new territory, but to redress the personal wrong, as the Pandavas felt that the they did not receive their rightful share of the kingdom after then return from forest exile. The cattle raids are conspicuously absent in the Bharata, which refers to it only once, 1 but such cattle raids have been incorporated later by Suta and Sauti.

It is surprising to see the extent to which the Bharata of Vaishampayana possesses the features of Greek heroic poetry.

In the latter we hardly find any references to the ancestors or successors of the Greek heroes. The Bharata is said to have been recited at the court of Janamejaya, the great grandson of Arjuna.

Yet in the epic itself no one later than Abhimanyu, son of Arjuna has taken a leading part in the Bharata war. The birth of Abhimanyu’s son Parikshita finds only a cursory mention in the Bharata. The ancestors beyond Bhishma do not figure in the main story of the war, but find mention in the legends,, which are later accretions to the Vaishampayana text. Sidhanta observes as follows: “ In these cases, as in other stories dealing with the far past, the invention of the poet colours old myths and folk-tales.

It is doubtful if he ever made up a whole story or created creatures of flesh and blood out of his own imagination. In his treatment of the main stories he may introduce fictitious details or pervert order of facts; but he is never, purely a Maker: ” While he may bring the same person in contact with heroes of different ages, he does not introduce them as actors in the same story. This is also true of the Vaishampayana text.

Folk-tales often find their way into heroic poetry. Thus Panzer discovered about two hundred variants of the Grendel story current in the different parts of Europe and Asia (Sidhanta, P'96). The folk-tales in Homer are mainly to be found in Odyssus's story of his adventures narrated in Alkinoos Court. 2

The tales of Cyclops, Polyphemos and Laistragenes introduce widespread stories of cannibolistic monsters. There are similar folk-tale elements in Mbh. also. When the Pandavas were living!n disguise at Ekachakrapur in the house of a brahmin, one day Kunti heard loud wailing coming from the house of a brahmin, who lived with his wife and daughter. On enquiry she learnt that the city was terrorized by a monster, who had made a compact with the residents of the village that every householder would supply him by turn a member of the family for his food. The wailing came from a brahmin family as it was their turn to provide a member of the family to the monster the next day. Kunti persuaded Bhima to go there instead. When the monster came to consume his prey, Bhima fought a duel with him and killed him after a desperate fight. Sidhanta points out (p. 97) that this story is a variant of Heracles’ adventure in rescuing Leomedon’s daughter Hesione from a devastating dragon and observes that it is curious that Bhima should resemble Herakles in so many ways.

The favourite weapon of both was a club and both depended on their muscle power to get the better of the enemy.

The personnel of the Iliad consists of almost wholly of princes and their military followers. The latter themselves sometimes belong to the princely families, as in the case of Achilles’ followers, Patrocles and Phoenix. The few remaining persons include several priests such as Chrysis, Dares and Dolpion and seers such as Calchas and Helenos; but some of these are also of princely birth. In the Odyssy the range is somewhat wider; Penelop’s suitors are said to be of princely rank which shows that the princely class was very numerous. Besides these we find priests, minstrels and heralds (Sidhanta, p. 64).

Taking the evidence of the two poems as a whole, it may be said that the interest is concentrated chiefly.upon persons of princely rank and their household and even the servants come in for a share of notice. But the merchant, the farmer and the artisan are practically ignored. There are only occasional references to persons engaged in agriculture and handicrafts. In Odyssey the range is somewhat wider. Apart from the numerous members of the princely classes, other persons such as Phaecian athletes, priests, minstrels, merchants and servants of princely families also find a mention therein. In Beowulf all persons mentioned by name, whether in the main action or the episodes appear to be members of royal families or military retenue of the princes.

In almost every story there is one character whose adventures form the chief object of interest. The nationality or race of the hero, is of no importance, and the sympathy of the reader is enlisted on the side to which he belongs. This sympathy, however, does not lead to the portrayal of the adversaries in a bad light. In the Iliad the army of the Acheans consists wholly of Greek forces, whereas the Trojan army is drawn from foreigners. It is, therefore, not surprising that the story is told from the Achean point of view. However, the treatment given to Trojans is often far from unsympathetic. Indeed to the modern reader. Hector is a far more attractive figure than any of the Achean heroes. Yet the sympathies of the poem are clearly on the side of the Achaeans, though curiously enough it is not mentioned that the Trojans are foreigners. 1 The leading heroes come from widely different regions and several of them from regions which were quite unimportant in historical times. All of them are represented as distinguishing themselves in feats of arms in some portion or other of Iliad; the rank and file count for nothing in the fight.

The Bharata of Vaishampayana also shows this feature which is associated with heroic poetry. The Bharata war arose as Kauravas refused to restore the kingdom of the Pandavas after their return from forest exile. The interest in the main story is centred on the actions of the heroes and the national or tribal 'nterest is rarely prominent, although the heroes belong to different tribes. Many tribes had extended their help to either s >de and it was the personal relation which was a decisive factor,n determining the alliances such as loyalty, marriage ties and friendships. Because of their loyalty to the throne of Hastinapur, Bhishma, Drona and Kama fought on the side of the Kauravas, while marriage ties induced Shakuni and Jayadratha to join the Kauravas and Drupada and Virata to join the Pandavas. Karna and Ashvatthama fought on the side of the Kauravas because of their friendship with Duryodhana, while the Vrishni heroes Krishna and Satyaki joined the Pandavas as they were friends of Arjuna. As regards the duration of the Bharata war, the parts of the story dealing with the war proper belong to the five parvas VI to IX and the war took place and concluded in eighteen days.

The Anglo-saxon tradition is different from the Greek tradition in that it brings the same person in contact with heroes of different ages and makes them actors in the same story.

Sidhanta observes as follows: “ In these cases, as in other stories dealing with the far past, the invention of the poet colours old myths and folk-tales. It is doubtful if he ever made up a whole story or created characters of flesh and blood out of his imagination. In his treatment of the main stories, he may introduce fictitious details or pervert the order of facts, but he is never purely a maker. While the Greek tradition may bring the same person in contact with heroes of different ages, it does not introduce these heroes as actors in the same story. Sidhanta says that the Anglo-saxon tradition is different from Greek tradition and introduces such heroes in the same story. In the Mbh. too later bards such as Suta and Sauti have added the legends of Bhargava Rama, who was a historical figure in Vedic times.

Bhargava Rama is mentioned in the Rigveda (X. 10) as a Vedic seer and composer of Vedic hymns. The Atharvaveda (V. 18)

also mentions briefly the conflict between him and the Haihaya king Kartavirya. Although he was separated from the epic heroes by one or two epochs, Sauti brings him into direct contact with the epic characters, especiall

Система охраняемых территорий в США Изучение особо охраняемых природных территорий(ООПТ) США представляет особый интерес по многим причинам...

Что делать, если нет взаимности? А теперь спустимся с небес на землю. Приземлились? Продолжаем разговор...

ЧТО И КАК ПИСАЛИ О МОДЕ В ЖУРНАЛАХ НАЧАЛА XX ВЕКА Первый номер журнала «Аполлон» за 1909 г. начинался, по сути, с программного заявления редакции журнала...

Что вызывает тренды на фондовых и товарных рынках Объяснение теории грузового поезда Первые 17 лет моих рыночных исследований сводились к попыткам вычислить, когда этот...

Не нашли то, что искали? Воспользуйтесь поиском гугл на сайте: