________________
172
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
.
SEPTEMBER, 1928
dwelling place mentioned to help us in identifying him? In those days, there were two ways of indicating a man's identity: either his parentage was given, as, Gargya Balaki, Sveta. ketu Aruneya, etc.; or, his native place was mentioned, as Janaka Vaideha, Ajatasatru Käsya, etc. So, the expression Magadhavasi' with reference to Prâtibodhiputra, is employed only to indicate his identity, and not because it was unusual for a Brahman to be a native of that place. What is somewhat ont of the way here, is that the man's parentage also is given; he is also said to be Pratibodhi-putra, lit. 'son of Pratibodhi.' But it only means that a double method of indicating the man's identity has been employed; and this may be due to an over-cautiousness to avoid all possibility of mistake.
It is not denied that the eastern districts were Brahmanised later than the Kuru-Pan. calas; nor is it denied that Brahmans came to settle there only gradually; but it has also to be admitted that Brahmans did come and did settle there as early as the time to which the story of Videgha-Mathava refers. There is nothing in the story to show that the author was des. cribing a contemporaneous event. So, in his time the colonization may have been a completed process; and numbers of Brahmans may have already gone there. And at the time when the hymns of the Atharva and the Yajus referred to above were composed, Brahmans must have begun pouring in into Magadha. So, on the face of it, there is nothing improbable in the supposition that the texts above referred to speak of the Brahmang who established a colony there and not the aboriginal inhabitants. Bet probability is not proof, and we can never be sure that the banter was intended against the Brahmans of those places, who, as has been supposed, had adopted degraded customs.
Besides, it is possible to over-rate the importance and significance of this so-called banter. It may as well be understood as an unconscious compliment. Some of the passages referred to above occur in connection with the Puruşa-medha ceremony, not a very laudable perfor. mance, to say the least. It is not inconceivable that a ceremony like this did not receive the unstinted assent of all, it is not inconceivable that it provoked criticism ; and it is also imagi. nable that the eastern districts were averse to it. It would not be unnatural in that case for those who followed the practice to wish evil to those who opposed it. If that be the case, the Vedic hymns in question imply a compliment in disguise to the people of Magadha.
That the people of Videha-Magadha were not altogether negligible that even customs and practices obtaining in that country were entitled to consideration, is also proved by references to this country by the commentator on Asvaldyana's Gyhya-Satra (i. 7. 2). Curi. ously enough, Max Müller in his History of Sanskrit Literature (p. 52), has misquoted and mistranslated this passage. The text as given by Max Müller reads as follows:
Vaidehepu sadya-eva vyavdyo dyptah; grhyesu tu brahmacaryyam vihitam, &c. The text according to the Bombay Edition is as follows:
.... grhye tu 'brahma-carinau triratram ili brahmacaryyam vihitam, &c. Max Müller's reading obviously omits the quotation from earlier texts, viz. brahmacarinau triratram.' And his translation is hopelessly inaccurate. He writes:
"Among the Vaidehas, for instance, one sees at once (sadya-eva) that loose habits (evi. dently this translates' vyavaya ') prevail, &c."
Is the text correct! The reading is : atha ha sma asya putra dha madhyamah prátibodhi (1 yodhi) putrah magadha visl, etc. Xow, the man is first spoken of as his son' (asya putra) referring to Hragva Mandakeya in the preceding paragraph. What then is meant by calling himson of Prátibodhi' (Prátibodhi.putra)? Or is it a proper name? What is Madhyama then ! But neither Pratibodhiputra nor Madhyama really looks like a proper name.
Supposing we left out the words. Madhyama Prâtibodhiputra Magadhavasi,' the continuity of the gentence would remain unbroken; and thore would be no difficulty about the meaning of the statement
180. What then is the special significance of these-apparently at least, redundant-words? Have the woras crept into the texts from marginal notes of manuscripts ! Ono wonders.
