________________
JUNE, 1877.]
ON THE KRISHNAJAN MÅSHTAMI.
171
first dated representation of the festival, namely, Hemadri, the author of the Chaturvargachin- tú manis. Therefore it must have been another reason which led to the omission of the festival in the Bhag. Pur.ll I would propose the following explanation - In the Bhág. Pur. we have the modern turn of the Krishna-cultus, which chiefly concerns the amours of Krishna, and where the mother of the god gradually retires in course of time more and more into the back. ground; whereas, on the other hand, as we shall see, in the celebration of the Janmáshtami the mother comes specially into the foreground, - she plays a chief part in it, whereas no notice at all is, or rather can be, taken of the amours of Krishna, since he still appears as a babo at his mother's breast. I do not hesitate to notice here a particularly archaic moment of the celebration, the more so, since, as will appear further on, even here the endeavour has in course of time manifested itself to repress this side of it, and to offer the tribute of the celebration to the god alone, without his mother.
Among the Puranas quoted as authorities for the festival, the Bhavishya (or Bhavishyat), and the Bhavishyottara Purana occupy throughout the most prominent position. With reference to the verification of the quotations in question, unfortunately, peculiar ill luck prevails. As far as in the first instance the Bhavishya Pur. is concerned, the Oxford MS. of it (see Au- frecht, Catalogus, pp. 30-33) breaks off in the representation of the Festival calendar just
with the seventh (exactly like our MS. of Hemîdri's Vratakhanda); the immediately fol. lowing section of the eighth, in which the Janmashtami celebration ought to be represent. ed, is wanting. Further, the Bhavishyottara Parána, evidently a supplement to it, is indeod before me in MS. (see Catal. of the Berlin Sansk. MSS., pp. 133-7), but contains nothing about this festival in the section treating of the festivals on the "eight." According to all probability, we have here to deal, however, only with an omission on the part of the copyist; for, according to Aufrecht (Catalogus, pp. 34-36), both the Oxford MSS. of the work actually contain a chapter on the Janmashtami, whilst our MS. gives in lieu of it a chapter on the sonmáshtami, which is thus twice represented therein. For this a double explanation presents itself; the writer was either a Saiva, and therefore intentional. ly interpolated in lieu of the Krishna festival a Rudra festival (which the somáshtami communicated by him is), or-as his name, Rii. maji contradicts this--the MS. from which he copied was defective. This defect appears, however, to have been noticed finally on the delivery of the MS., and the writer may have had to answer for it, because after the date of the copy has been stated, yet 7} verses more are added (see my Verz. der Berl. Sansk. H. 8. p. 137), which, although in an extremely unsatisfactory manner, really concern the Krishna festival, so that the suspicion arises that the
On the probable difference of his personality from that of Vopadeva's patron who bore the same name, see what has been remarked above, p. 161. The synchronism of both men is meanwhile seoured otherwise, nor is it entirely beyond the bounds of possibility that an identity of personality may yet at last result. The author of the Chaturvargach.calls himself the minister of king “Mabddeva"; on the other hand, only later texts designate the natron of Vopaders as the minister of a king Ramachandra of Devagiri, but nothing of the kind is said by himself. That, however, at the time of the Chaturvurgach, one Bhagavata Puranı already existed appears hy the quotations made therefrom, which occur in it (see, for instance, Aufrecht, Catal. p. 38b).
Accordingly the testimonium a silentio cannot, as in this case, also be drawn from the non-mention of the festi. val in the Vishnu Pur. (according to Wilson, I. cxii. ed. Hall, composed about the middle of the eleventh century), or in the Harivanja
In the Narada Parichardtra, e.g., Krishna is often re. presented as the son of Devaki. (see III. 8, 7. 12, 9. 14. 2. 37. 58. IV. 1, 19. 3, 130. 5, 29. 8, 33); she is, however, be. sides mentioned only once (III. 7, 32): allusion to Krishna's birth and childhood is, after all, made only occasionally in the enumeration of his epithets (IV. 1, 18 sep. ; 8, 14), as could not, of course, be otherwise expected in a work which essentially glorifies him in an esoteric manner 88 the highest god.
# It might perhaps be supposed, as this occurs twice,
that we have here an intentional omission from a stand. point inimical to Krishna (aee immediately, p. 172). But none of the other ashtami festivals have anything to do with Krishna
Also the order of the other sections is different :Berlin MS.
Oxford MS. Ch. 51, somdshtamf. Ch. 47, budhashtami (Berl. 34) >> 52, darvashtami. 48, janmashtam. , 53, krishnashtami., 49, ddrvashim (=Berl. 52) → 54, budhashtam. 50, krishnashtamt (=Berl. 53)
55, anaghashtam., 51, anaghashtamt- Berl. 55)
56, somdshtami. 52, somashtami (Berl. 51, 56) Both the representations of the somashtami in Ch. 51, 56 of the Berlin MS. agree considerably in the beginning, and more particularly in the seven first verses, but afterwards diverge. Ch. 56 has in general only 25 versos. Ch. 51, on the other hand, breaks off on fol.1416 in the 49th verse, so that the conclusion is entirely wanting, as fol. 143. begins with Ch. 52. The Krishnashtrim occurring both in the Berlin and the Oxford MS. has nothing to do with the god Krishna, but concerns a celebration, to be addressed on each second quatter of the moon during the twelve months of the year, to Siva under twelve different names (Sankara in Margafirsha, sambhu in Pausha, Maheśvara in Magha, Mahadeva in Phálguna, Sthanu in Chaitra, Stva in Vaisakha, Parupati in Iyaishtha, Ugra in Åshadha, sarus in srdvana, Trayambaka in Bhadrapada, Bhavs in Asvina, Rudra in Karttika; and, this celebration is considered to be a corofortable substitute for the Vedio sacrifices agnishtoma; do.
