The Birth of Pururavas

Author(s): A. Berriedale Keith

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, (Apr., 1913), pp.
412-417
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25188985 .
Accessed: 07/02/2012 04:49
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press and Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and
Ireland.
http://www.jstor.org
412 THE 13IRTH OF PURURAVAS
rules is
a
sign
of
early
date.1 I now
gather
that this
admission
was a
blunder,
but it has been
made,
and if
it is
a
blunder,
then Mr. Nobel holds
a
totally contrary
view to the late Professor
Pischel,
with whom
personally
I
agree. (12)
The Mahdbhdrata is
not,
we are
told,
a
Kkvya,.
But it
expressly
says
that it
is,2
and it
probably
knew best. And
so
with the Vedic
poets.
A. Berriedale Keith.
The Birth
of
Pururavas
Dr. Johannes Hertel has
recently3 propounded
an
interesting theory
of the
original
character of the Vedic
Pururavas. In the
Rgveda
(x,
95.
18)
he is called
Aila,
which
means
either
son of Ila
or son
of
Ihi,
though
the former is
perhaps
the more
natural
sense,
on the
assumption
that
a
patronymic
is more
probable
than
a
metronymic.
But
beyond
this
nothing
is said in the
Vedic texts of his
origin.
On the
one
hand,
the
Mahdbhdrata
(i,
75. 18
seq.)
says
that he was
brought
into existence
(samapadyata)
in
Ila,
and that she
was
at once
his mother and his
father,
as
the
report
ran.
On the other
hand,
the Puranas have
a
series of variant
versions4 which reveal Ila
or
Ila
as a
being
of
changing
sex
and
as
sprung
in some
way
through
a
sacrifice of
Manu,
desirous of
a son.
The sacrifice of Manu is of
course a
Vedic tradition
5
borrowed in the
Puranas,
though
1
See his
conclusion,
ZDMG.
lxvi, 279,
n.
1,
which seems to me
excellent
sense,
but fatal to his own case.
2
See
Hopkins,
Greek
Epic of India, pp. 59,
80.
3
VOJ.
xxv,
153-80.
4
Kurma, xx,
4
seqq.
;
Linga, i,
05. 19
seqq.
;
Matxya,
xi,
40
seqq.
;
Padma, v,
8. 75
seqq.
;
Visnu, iv,
1. 8
seqq.
; Brahma, vii,
3
seqq.
;
Harivamki, i,
10. 3
seqq.
;
Vdyn,
lxxxv,
3
seqq.
;
Markandeya, cxi,
0
seqq.
;
Bhdyarata, ix,
1. 3
seqq.
Cf.
Ramayana,
vii,
87
seqq.
6
Taittirlya Sayhitd, i,
7.
1.
3; ii,
0. 7.
1-4
; Brdhmana, i,
1.
4,
4-7
;
Kathaka, xi, 2;
Satapatha Brdhmana, i,
8. 1.
THE MIITH OF PURURAVAS 413
not in the Kurma
or
Linga
or in the
Rdmdyana.
The
change
of
sex is not at all a rare
topic
in Indian
literature,
and is found
as
early
as
the
legend
of
Bhangasvina,
in the
Baudhayana
Srauta Sutra.1 But
Hertel infers from the
comparison
of the versions and
from the
use of
kimpurusa
of III that there lies behind
them
an
older version
of the
legend
in which Ila
was,
as
suggested by
the
Mahdbhdrata,
"
ein
Zwitter,
ein
vollkounnener
dv&poyuvos"';
and this
sense of
kimpurusa
he sees in the
Linga, Matsya (and Padma)
Puranas,
and
the
Rdmdyana, though
the latter misunderstands its
meaning,
and
probably
the Puranas
were in no
better
case. The
Rdmdyana recognizes,
however,
as
father of
Ila
(it
has
no
Ila)
not Manu but
Prajapati,
and this
suggests
that
Aija
in the
Rgveda,
has
really nothing
at all to do
with
idd,
"
offering,"
but is
a
reference to Ila
as
the
father of Pururavas.
Final!}',
Hertel is led to the
con
clusion,
which
agrees
with that of
Benfey,2
that
we
have
in the case
of Ila a
relic of the
androgynous conception
of
gods
which he believed to have existed in Indo
Germanic
religion,
and which he illustrated
03'
the
relation of the Sakti to the
god
and the
use
of
names
like Ind rani. Hertel
compares
also the
legends
of the
German
Loki,
who is said to have
changed
sex,3
and he
finds the
same
double nature
faintly
reflected in the
legends
of
Prajapati
4
and of the birth of Athene and
Dionysosr>
from
Zeus,
as
well
as
in the Germanic
Tuisto,
father of Mannus.
1
SceCaland,
VOJ.
xvii,
351
;
Win tern
it/,,
ibid. 292.
3
ZDMG.
viii,
455
seqq.,
and in his edition of the Pancatantra
(i> ? 9).
3
Golther,
llandhuch der
yermanischcn Mythologie, pp.
410
seqq.
4
The evidence
is,
in
itself,
quite
insullieient,
consisting only
of
a
few
Brahmana
phrases (Maitrayani Samhitd, i,
0. 3
;
Satapatha
Brdhmana,
viii,
4. 2.
1),
where
metaphoric
terms are
used of
Prajapati's
creative
action.
5
Hero,
again,
Hertcl's view is not in accord with the best authorities
on
Greek
religion.
414 THE BIRTH OF PURURAVAS
How far
we are to
see in the
legends
of the
Epic
and the Puranas traces of the double nature of the
god
it is not
my purpose
to consider in
detail;
the notices
are
insufficient to
carry
us
far,
and the real
importance
is
the Vedic evidence. Hertel discovers in the Samhitas
of the
Yajurveda proof
of the tradition of
a
male Ila.
In the
Taittirlya
Samhitd
(i,
5. 6.
1)
and the
Maitrayani
(i,
5.
3,
10)
we find the
verse?
sam
pasyami prajd
aham
idaprajaso
mdnavih I
sdrva bhavantn
no
grheW
Here in Hertel's view
we
have Ida. It is true that
in the Kathaka
(vii, I)
idaprajaso
occurs,1
but that is
but a
mistaken
correction,
and is not used in the
Brahmana
portion
(vii,
8),
in which also sarvdh is
read,
and not bahvVi
as
in the
verse
portion,
which Hertel
takes for another
sign
of later character.
Now,
the last
point evidently
tells
against,
not for Hertel.
In
an
old ritual
verse we
expect
not sarvdh but rather
bahvih', thus,
in the
very
same section of the Kathaka
we
find bahvir
me
bharata',
the
Taittirlya
has bahvlr
me
bhuydsta (i,
5. C>.
1),
and the
Maitrayani (i,
5.
2,
9)
has bahvir bhavala. So in the Asvainedha
(iv, 6)
of the
Kathaka.
we
have bahvir bhavaiitir
npa
ow
gostham
dsuh,
and
a
similar
phrase
in the
Taittirlya
Brdhmana
(iii,
7. 4.
15).
The
use of sarvdh is
later,
not vice
versa.
Whether
iddprajasah
or
idaprajasah
is
really
the
Kathaka version
we
do not
know;
the two
passages
rest
on too few MSS. to allow
us
to
decide,
and it is
not certain from
von
Schroeder's silence if he has
specially
recorded the
readings
of his MSS. in the two
passages.
But Hertel
forgets
that
idaprajas
does not
necessarily
mean
"
offspring
of Ida.
",
for the
simple explanation
of it
is that idtt is
a
shortening
for idd. The
simplicity
of
1
Bohtlingk
is blamed for not
noting
this
form,
but he could not do so
as the Kathaka
was not
printed
until 1900.
THE BIRTH OF PURURAVAS
415
this
explanation
commended it to
Weber,1
who
quoted
as
parallels pundarisrajd (Taittirlya,
i,
8. 18.
1), grlva
daghna (v,
6. 8.
3), senajit (iv,
4. 3.
2),
istakacit
(i,
5. 8.
2),
prthivisad (i,
7. 12.
1),
sendnigrdmanyan
(iv,
4. 3.
1),
amdvdsyatva (ii,
5. 3.
7), prthivitva (vii,
1. 5.
1),
vasati
varitva
(vi,
4. 2.
1),
sarkaratva
(v,
2. 6.
2), sar\iydnitva
(v,
3. 10.
1).
Probably
here too
belong ajatva (vi,
1.
6.
3)
and
ajakslra (ii,
2. 4.
4;
v,
4. 3.
2),
though
in these cases
the short
it is
explained by Wackernagel2
on
the
theory
of
a
reversion to the
epicoene
form,
which I do not think
at all
probable.
In
any
case, there is
plenty
of evidence
to
dispose
of the view that
iddprajas
must mean
"
offspring
of Ida ".
Now if we
look to find some
explanation
why prajah
are
called manavih and
idaprajasah, why
should we
go
beyond
the
story
of the
Satapatha
Brahmana
(i,
8. 1.
7-10)
? There we
find the
Ida,
sprung
from the
sacrifice,
saying
to
Manu,
"
If thou wilt make
use
of
me at the
sacrifice,
thou wilt become rich in
offspring
and
cattle,"
and the text
goes
on
to
say
that Manu
"
through
her
generated
this
race,
which is the race
of Manu
",
and that
"
whoever,
knowing
this,
performs
with
[the
Ida],
he
propagates
this
race
which Manu
generated
". If ever
there was
offered to us a
clear
explanation, surely
it is
here. Manu's connexion with the Ida is
reported
in the
Taittirlya
itself
(i,
7.
1),
in the Kaf liaka
(viii, 4),
the
Maitrdyani
(i,
6.
13),
and the
Taittiriya
Brahmana
(i,
1. 4.
4),
and
again
in the
Taittiriya
(ii,
6.
7).
In the
first series of
passages
the
summoning
of the Ida is
expressly
connected with the
gaining
of
cattle,
showing
that in the Kdthaka
(vii, 8)
the term
aidlli does not
mean,
as
Hertel3
thinks,
"connected with
Ida",
but
"
connected with the Ida". The latter
passage
besides
1
Indische
Studien, xiii, 22,
n.
0, 47,
n. 2. See also
Wackernagel,
Allind. Cram,
ii,
1.
134, 135; Macdonell,
Vedic
Grammar, pp. 75,
70.
2
Op.
cit. 49.
3
VOJ.
xxv,
183.
416 THE 13IRTH OF PURURAVAS
mentioning
cattle,
explains
the
epithets
mdiiavl,
ghrta
padl,
and maitrdvaruni
as
applied
to the
Ida,
the
only
difference of
importance being
that
nothing
is said of Ida
being
Manus
daughter,
the
reason
of ondoiavl
being
asserted to be that Manu
saw
her first.
From this
discrepancy
and
idctprajas
Hertel deduces
that the stories of Ida
arose from the
misunderstanding
of old
epithets,
that the
Satapatha
invented the
daughter
ship
relation,
and
applied
it to Pururavas'
epithet
Aila,
that the Black
Yajur
veda texts borrowed the relation of
Manu and the
Ida,
though they
still retained the
knowledge
that Ida
was Manus son
and had
nothing
to do with the
Ida.
But,
as
the facts cited above
show,
Ida in
a
paternal
relationship
of
any
kind iu connexion with Manu is
a
pure
fiction for Vedic
texts;
the Ida is connected with
Manu
by strong
evidence,
as his sacrifice
?
in the
Satapatha
the
relationship
is
admittedly mythical,
not
physical?and
as
the
means of
winning
cattle and
offspring.
Hence
offspring
are
called "connected with
Manu" and "connected with Ida"
(aidlh)
or
"offspring
of Ida
"
(iddprajasah) by
a
natural and normal
process.
It is in this
regard
of
no
possible importance
whether
idd
mdiiavl
original ly,
before the Brahmana
stage,
meant
something
else;
personally
I
see no
shred of
reason to
suppose
it
ever meant
anything
but "connected
with
Maim",
which is
naturally interpreted,
as
by
all
the texts it
is,
in
fact,
interpreted,
as
employed by
Manu,
the
mythical
first
man
and
exemplar.1
Pururavas
as son
of the Ida is thus
a
possible conception
in the
Satapatha
Brdhnuina
(xi,
5. 1
seq.),2
nor can we
deny
that this
may
be the
original
sense.
We find indeed
in
Vdjasaneyi
Samhita
(ii, 3),
and it
may
be added in
the
Maitrayani
Samhitd
(iv,
13.
2)
and the
Taittirlya
1
Seo
Macdonell,
Vedic
Mythology,
p.
139.
2
It is
normally
assumed to have this
sense,
so
by Eggeling,
Macdonell
(Vedic Mythology,
p. 124), Geldner,
etc.
RUDDHACARITA, I,
30 417
Brahmana
(iii,
6.
1),
the
phrase
ida
iditah,
which the
Pada texts take
as
idah. Hertel
can
make
nothing
of
this
phrase,
but the St.
Petersburg Dictionary
seems
right
in
finding
in it
an
epithet
of
Agni,
and if this
is
so,
then it
may
be that in Pururavas
we
have to
see
nothing
more or less than
a
descendant of
Agni,
and
it will not be
forgotten
that Pururavas'
son is
Ayu,
probably
another form of
Agni.1
Therefore it seems to
me that Aila refers to this
fact,
and not at all to Ida.
It must be remembered that the
Satapatha
never
says
if
Ai]a
means
"offspring
of Ila"
or
"
Ija";
that it
means
the latter is
assumed,
not
proved,
nor in
any
case
could
the
Satapatha
be
an
authority
for the
early
sense of the
Rgveda.
Nor is
v,
41. 10
any
proof
that the Ida
was
connected
early
with
Pururavas,
for the
passage
is
wholly unintelligible.2
I find therefore
no
trace of
a
bisexual
Ija
in Vedic
literature. We have the
Ida,
the
personified
oblation,
on
the
one
hand,
connected with Mitra and Varuna from the
first,3
and later with
Manu,
and
Ila,
an
epithet
of
Agni,
and
nothing
more.4
A. Berriedale Keith.
BUDDHACARlTA,
I,
30
Le beau travail
que
M. C. Formichi
a consacre au
Buddhacarita ct
a
Afvaghosa,
Poeta del Buddhismo
1
Cf.
Ayu's parallelism
with
Apfit(i Napat, emphasized hy
(loldnor,
Vedische
Studien, i,
275.
Compare
also
Agnis
close
relationship
with
Pururavas
{Rgveda,
i,
31.
4),
and with
Ayu
{.samsam
Ay
oh, iv,
G.
11;
cf.
ii,
4.
2). Moreover,
in
Kd(haka, viii, 10, Ayu
and the fire are
closely
connected
(cf. Weber,
Indische
Studien, iii,
403
;
(Jeldner, op.
cit.
i, 248).
2
(leldner
(op.
cit.
i, 283)
admits
this,
and neither Bloomlield
(JAOS.
xx, 183)
nor
Oldenburg {Hgveda-Noten,
i, 338)
solves the
dilliculty.
*
See
ligveda,
v,
02.
5,
0
;
vii,
04. 2.
4
That tho other
Sai|ihitus
borrowed from the
Satapatha
is most
improbable
;
they
would doubtless have taken the
metaphor
of
daughter
if
they
had. The
Satapatha
is no doubt the later text.