THE LONDON QUARTERLY REVIEW. VOL. XLVI. PUBLISHED IN APRIL AND JULY, 1876. London: PUBLISHED FOR THE PROPRIETORS, AT THE 2, CASTLE STREET, CITY ROAD; SOLD AT 66, PATERNOSTER-ROW. LONDON: PRINTED BY BEVERIDGE AND CO., (SUCCESSORS TO R. NEEDHAM), HOLBORN PRINTING WORKS, Fullwood's RENTS, W.C. THE LONDON QUARTERLY REVIEW. APRIL, 1876. ART. I.-1. A View of the History, Literature, and Mythology of the Hindus. By W. WARD. Two Vols. Second Edition. Serampore, 1818. 2. Indian Wisdom. By MONIER WILLIAMS, M.A., Boden Professor of Sanskrit, Oxford. W. H. Allen & Co. 1875. 3. Chips from a German Workshop. By MAX MÜLLER. Vol. I. Longmans & Co. 4. History of Ancient Sanscrit Literature. By MAX 5. Christ and Other Masters. By ARCHDEACON HARDWICK. Third Edition. Macmillan & Co. 1874. 6. Ancient and Medieval India. By MRS. MANNING. Two Vols. W. H. Allen & Co. MÜLLER. Williams and Norgate, 1860. THE extraordinary interest manifested of late years in the West in Sanscrit studies is easily explained. The relation of the sacred language of India to the great family of languages of which our own is one, the complex character of the language itself, the influence of the literature which it enshrines on the lives of generation after generation of uncounted millions, the stake of England in the Indian empire, fully explain and justify any amount of attention to the subject. Of the relation of Sanscrit to Western tongues, Müller goes so far as to say "Sanscrit and English are but varieties of one and the same language." Hindus maintain that it is the mother of all other tongues, just as they hold that it is the language of the gods; but the conclusion of Western scholars is that it is the elder sister of the Aryan,* as distinguished from the Semitic and Turanian * â a in father, & =a in mate, î ee in meet, û =00 in loot. 1840419 families, the other Aryan sisters being the Teutonic, Celtic, Slavonic, Greek, Latin languages and their modern offspring. The importance of Sanscrit to the comparative philologist is thus apparent. To the student of Hindu thought and life, to the Indian missionary, its value is still greater, as the only key to the explanation of the India of to-day. It is fitting that England should lead the van in this line of exploration. The English Government in the East, the Asiatic Society, English missionaries, professors and civil servants have done much to make the subject known in the West. An extensive literature of translations and essays has grown up. Jones, Colebrooke, Wilson, Williams, Müller whom we may at least claim in part, are teachers who have many worthy disciples. The excellent metrical translation of the Râmâyana, now being published by Mr. Griffith, Principal of a Sanscrit College at Benâres, should remind us of the translation begun, though never completed, by Dr. Carey, at Serampore, in days when facilities were fewer. Professor Wilson's version of the Vishnu Purana, the most valuable of the Purânas, and his Hindu Theatre, in which he translates six of the best plays, represent work which will never be superseded. Colebrooke's solid, masterly essays have just appeared in a second edition. Professor Williams's Sanscrit Dictionaries, and Indian Wisdom, are worthy of the Oxford Sanscrit chair. And most herculean task of all, Max Müller, after issuing a complete edition of the Vedic text, has given up his professorship in order to devote himself to the work of translating the Vedas. It is to the Vedas we wish now to devote a few pages. We do so because while these are not the most interesting they are the most ancient, and in India the most authoritative and sacred, of all works. After such a statement it may sound startling, and seem a contradiction, to say that the sacred Scriptures of Brahmanism are little known in India itself. Yet this is the fact. It is true that the mental repetition of a particular Vêdic verse is part of a Brahman's daily devotions; but this is generally the limit of his knowledge of his most holy books. We do not question that there are a few native scholars who know something of the subject, but the overwhelming majority of Brahmans have no knowledge worthy of the name. The Vêdas are far more accessible, more studied, and better known in Europe than in India. Should Max Müller live to complete his task, he will be in no little danger of undergoing Hindu canonisation along with Vyâsa, Vishwâmitra, and the other Vêdic saints. One cause of this ignorance is the archaic form of the Sanscrit in which the Vedas are written, rendering it a sealed book even to accomplished students of the classical Sanscrit of the epics, and requiring special training. But the principal cause is the fact that the simple natural religion of the Vedas is not the religion of India now, and has not been for ages. Of the mountains of Purânic mythology, of the ten Vishnu incarnations with their endless legends, the Vedas contain nothing. Transmigration is not even hinted at. The allusions to the Divine Triad and caste are doubtful in meaning or date. Pantheism is indeed more prominent, but not in the full-blown form of Vêdantism. The source and authority for all these things are the Purânas and Epics, far more modern works, which have taken the place of the ancient Scriptures, and are sometimes spoken of as "a fifth Vêda." Hence the books which lie at the foundation of India's religious thought and life have fallen into utter neglect, and are little more than a name and magic charm. The nominal reverence of Hindus for their ancient canon is indeed unbounded. All Hindu science and law are linked on to the Vêdas. Thus the six systems of philosophy are said to be developed from the Upanishad portion of the Vedas. The sciences of grammar, astronomy, &c., are called Vêdângas, limbs of the Vêda. But the real amount of connection is very slight. The idea looks like a device of subsequent writers to gain Divine authority for their works. The Hindu Vedas (Greek, oida; English, wit, wisdom, &c.) are four, the Rig, Yajur, Sâma, and Atharvana. But it would be a great mistake to regard these as of equal importance. The first is the Vêda in chief; the other three being subordinate in many respects, and often largely reproducing the first. The last has been disputed even in India. In the following passage of Manu's Code of Law it does not occur: "The Rig-Vêda has the gods for its deities, the Yajur Veda has men for its objects, the Sama-Vêda has the Pitris (ancestors)."* So an Indian commentator, quoted by Adelung, says, "The Rig-Veda originated from * Williams, p. 9. |