Indian Antiquary Vol 54

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Stephen Meredyth Edwardes, Krishnaswami Aiyangar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 22

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ JANUARY, 1925
THE COUSIN IN VEDIC RITUAL.
By A. M. HOCART. In various papers I have collected information which shows that the maternal relations, but more especially the sister's son, eat the sacrifice as representatives of the gods or ancestral spirits; that among certain people they are beaten for doing so, and that this beating is part of a sporting or ceremonial enmity between them and the paternal rela. tions.1 Mr. Perry in his children of the Sun has collected numerous instances of the hostility between intermarrying groups, though he has not sufficiently brought out the friendly character of this hostility. Those sources must serve as introduction to the present paper, in which I take for granted the ceremonial hostility of cross cousins, that is a man and his mother's brother's son or father's sister's daughter.
The Vedic sacrifice, and indeed for that matter the Mediæval Indian sacrifice, was conceived as a victory over the evil powers opposed to the sacrificer. This conception is often expressed in the formula på pmânam tad dviçantam bhratreyam hatva, 3 which Eggeling translates, “Slaying his wicked spiteful enemy." The word 'enemy' stands for bhratroya, & word of somewhat doubtful meaning, but which anyhow is derived from bhráty, brother. Professors MacDonell and Keith discuss the word in their Vedic Index thus : " Bhratsvya is found in one passage of the Atharvaveda, where, being named (V. 22.12), with brother and sister, it must be an expression of relationship. The sense appears to be ' (father's) brother's son, cousin,' this meaning alone accounting for the sense of rival, 'enemy' found elsewhere, in the Atharvaveda, and repeatedly in the other Samhitâs and Brahmanas. In an undivided family the relations of cousins would easily develop into rivalry and enmity. The original meaning may, however, have been nephew, as the simple etymological sense would be brother's son'; but this seems not to apoount for the later meaning so well. The Kathaka Samhita prescribes the telling of a falsehood to a BhrAtsvya, who, further is often given the epithets 'hating' (dvişan) and 'evil' (apriya, papman) in the later Samhitas and the Brahmaņas. The Atharvaveda also contains various spells, which aim at destroying or expelling one's rivals'."
I do not agree with the learned authors that the meaning 'father's brother's son ' alone accounts for the sense of enemy. After considerable experience of undivided families I cannot see the transition. On the other hand we have abundant evidence from South Africa to North America that enmity is prescribed between a man and his mother's brother's son. I have therefore asked Professor MacDonell if there is any evidence for the father as against the mother, and he replies, “I do not think there is any evidence that it means father's brother's son, nor on the other hand that it is mother's brother's son. It would certainly be interesting, if it could be proved. But I doubt if it ever could."
I am not so certain that it never could : by direct evidence, doubtless, it is impossible ; but there is such a thing as circumstantial evidence, which is often better than the direct.
Firstly, & presumption would be created in favour of the mother, if it could be proved that the Vedic kinship system was classificatory. Morgan in his Systems of Consanguinity assumed it to be individual like ours; but of late grave doubts have arisen in my mind as to whether the parent Indo-European system was not classificatory. Now in a classificatory system the father's brother's son would be a brother, so that a different word would not be used, except in a transition stage to an individual system. But a mother's brother's son would be distinguished from a brother.
The Uterine Nephew,' Man, 1923, No. 4. The Maternal Relations in Indian Ritual,' Man, 1924, No. 76 Buddha and Devadatta, Indian Antiquiary, 1923, p. 267. ; E., Satapatha, VI, 3. 4. 7 f.
3 Ibid., XII, 7. 3. 4.