Additional Notes on the Brahmin Clans - J. Brough

8/13/2019 Additional Notes on the Brahmin Clans - J. Brough

1/5

Additional Notes on the Brahmin Clans

Author(s): J. BroughSource: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 74, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1954), pp. 263-266Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/595516.

Accessed: 16/05/2013 09:46

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 ofcontent 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 [email protected].

.

American Oriental Societyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of

the American Oriental Society.
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aoshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/595516?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/595516?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aos


2/5

BRIEF COMMUNICATIONAdditionalNotes on the Brahmin Clans

In a review-articlen a previousvolume of thisJOURNAL,1rofessorD. D. Kosambidiscussed omeaspects of the Brahmanicalgotra-system, withparticularreferenceto my book on the subject.2Since in the preface o that bookI had criticizedanumberof points in Rosambi's arlierwritings onthe subject,I have naturallyno groundsfor com-plaint in the fact that he in his turn criticizedmy preface. But there are nevertheless few mat-ters in his review which call for comment,and Iam grateful for the opportunity f removinga fewmisconceptions s to my own views all the moreso since on many points I am much less at vari-ance with ProfessorKosambi han a casual readerof his reviewmight suspect.I am grateful to Professor :Sosambi for thegenerousremarks n which he expressesapprovalof the main part of my work. But in one par-ticular, alas, the praise is unmerited; for it issaid that one of my most valuable conclusionsis that the rolls as they now exist derive fromone prototype, which may be regarded as theMatsya Purana. It may be that I did not ex-press myself with sufficient clarity, for what Iintendedto say aboutthe MatsyaPurana (p. 48)was quite opposed to this. Indeed, this seemedto be one of the most certain results of a com-parative study of the lists: that the version inthe Matsya has no independentauthority,but isentirely derivedfrom a Sutra list closely akin tothe Eatyayana-Laugaksiist. This dependence fthe Purana version s shownthroughoutby manyfeatures, and not least by the order in which thenames occur in the extended ists of sub-familieswithin the ganas. In the main, the order of theSutra lists is followed: but again and again thePurana compiler resorts to minor inversions inorder o fit the names nto his metre. For example,at the beginning of the Easyapas, the first 24

1 Vol. 73, pp. 202-208. See also the same author'sarticle, Development of the Gotra System, ( P. K.Gode C07nmemoration Volume), which covers much thesame ground, but adds a few minor points.2 The Early Brahmanical System of Gotra and Pra-vara. A translation of the Gotra-pravara-manjart ofPurusottama-pandita (Cambridge, 1953 .

names seem to have correspondedn their orderto those in the K and L list; but thereafter, henames which come in the latter as nos. 25-35 arereshuffled n the Purana in the order 28, 26, 2T,2S, 29, 30, 33, 3l, 32, 34, 35. Minor rearrange-ments of this type occurregularly hroughout hewhole range of the subfamilies,and are quite nat-urally understoodas arising from the need to fitthe older lists into the metrical form of thePurana. But on the hypothesis that the Sutralists (whichare not versified)are derived rom thePurana, these rearrangements ould be quite in-explicable. In the sameway, the Puranaalters theforms of individual names from time to time,again in order to fit the metre. For example,among the Bharadvajas, he Sutras have prava-haneya-, (pp. 112, 115), which is changedby theMatsya o pravahis ca (p. 119). Conversely, herethe Sutras showarqbni-amongthe Gautamas pp.103, 107), the Purana ills out its metreby writingarqbnayanih p. 109). In ivothof these examples,the form of name in the 1ELnd L list is confirmedby the Baudhayana ist, which is textually inde-pendent of all the others; and again there wouldbe no reason for an alteration if the Sutra listswere derivedfrom the Purana. There are even afew cases where the Purana author has recklesslymutilated the names he found in his source. Forexample, where the Sutra has vasamulayo vasa-puspayo ... kacaksi- (p. 107), the ZIatsyaver-sion has mulayo vasqzr eva ca: kacaksi-puspayas'caiva (p. 109). Here again the Sutra forms couldnot possiblyhave been derived rom the Purana.Theseare only a few examples hosenat random,and they could be multiplied ndefinitely. Indeed,in other circumstancest would have been hardlynecessary o quote even as much. But it is im-portant to insist on the fact that the MatsyaPurana ist is late comparedwith the Sutras; thatit is derivedfrom a Sutra list not identical with,but very closely related to, the 19 and L list; andthat it is derived from the Sutra by a purelytextual process in other words, it provides noevidencewhatsoever or the actual gotra situationat the time of the compilationof the Purana.263

This content downloaded from 151.100.161.185 on Thu, 16 May 2013 09:46:07 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/5

264Brtefommunication

list in a definiteorder,handeddownby tradition,

seemsoe necessaryo account or the extremelycloseamily-resemblancef all the Sutrapravara-dhyayas.owever,even in the framework,here

areifferencesetween the Sutras; andthese

differencesre not of a sort which couldbe ex-

plainedy assuminga purelytextual descent-afacthichlsomakes t impossibleo reconstructtheypotheticalriginal. We are therefore ed toconcludehat as the Sutra schoolsdeveloped,he

originalraditionalist wasgraduallyadjustednd

expandedo fit the structureof a societywhich

wastselfeveloping,and changingin differentlocalities.his does not of coursemean thatwe

canccepthese Sutra lists without reserveas

completelydequateaccountsof the gotrastruc-

turet giventime in a givenlocality. Therehas

alwayseen a tendencyfor Brahmantheoryto

commandhe facts; and even in caseswherethe

theoryas originatedfroma mistake,we must

alwayse preparedo findthat the factshave aterbeenade to fit it. Rosambi (p. 206) quotesa

modernasewherea boywasassigned o theDeva-

tarasotra instead of the Devarata,becausethe

officiatingurohita'sist did not containthelatter

name.hereis no possibledoubtthat theomis-

sionf Devarata n this case was the resultof

purelyextual error. There can be no questionheref what Ixosambielsewherecallsuncer-

taintyf the synthesis, since the boy'sfamily

apparentlyas known to belong in fact tothe

Devarataotra. Even at the early dateof the

compilationf the Sutra lists aswe now have

them,e cannotrule out entirelythe possibilityofimilaradjustmentsof the facts to the theory.Butor the most part, the Sutra authorsappeartoaveproceededn the mannerwhichseemsmore

naturalo us, andto haveadjusted he traditionalmaterialf their lists of gotrasand ganasto fit

theociety actuallyknownto them. Thus,it is

clearhat the Gautamasknownto the authorof

theBaudhayanaist weregrouped nto ganasin a

differentmannerfrom those knownto theother

Sutraauthors. The same appliesto the detailed

lists of subdivisionsof the ganas, where again

Baudhayana tands in oppositionto thegroup

formedby Katyayanaand L;augaksi,he Manavalist, and the so-called White Yajur VedaPari-

sista (K and L, Man.,and W.). The twosets

sharea sufficientnumberof namesto guaranteethat the two societieswhich they describereach

backto a commonorigin; but thereis no textual

Theecond uggestion that the lists as theynowxisterive romoneprototype is likewisea

theoryorhichI canclaimno credit;andagain,

abriefnspectionf the list themselvess sufficientto showhat it is an untenableheory. A differentsuggestionas admittedly

made (p. 27), namely,thatecausef the generalagreementbetweenalltheextsn the orderingof the main gotras

andganasll startingwith the Bhrgus (and

withinthemheJamadagnya-Vatsas, idas, Arstisenas,etc.),ollowed y the Gautamas,Bharadvajas

ndRevalangirasas-we might reasonably

deducethat nhts respectthey areultimatelydescendedfromhe ameoriginal radition.But this originaltraditionan only have been concernedwith

themajorroupings;and evenherethereis no

exactagreementetween he main Sutraaccounts.

Themosthatwe cansayis that the agreements

suffi-cientlyloseto showthat the Sutra accounts

arenotbnitio independent escriptions f the gotrastructure.Wosambiontinues ( 1): The first part

oftheitle s not justified. Thegotra ist cannot

pos-siblye early,no matterhow archaic he system.Theldest authority, as noted, is the

MatsyaPurana.he last statement,as we haveseen,

isamisunderstanding,he Puranaversionbeing

en-tirelyerivative, nd in all probabilitymuch

laterthanny of the others. But as for the

termarlyit is surelysimplya matter or agreement

asohowwe shall applyit. If it has beenunder-

stoodereto referto, say, the periodof thecom-

positionf the Rgveda, henit wouldcertainlynot

beustified. Nevertheless, lthough t is notpossi-

bleo assignthe Sutralists to a precisedate,there

seemso beno reason o doubt hat theyreflect,n

essentials,he gotrasystemas it was towardshe

endf the Vedic period n the widersense,and

hence,feel, still sufficiently early to meritthe

description. he pravaradhyayasormappendicestothe main ritual Sutras, and it is improbablethat he date of their compilation s significantlylater han the texts to which they are attached.Andas the Xlatsya ersion ndicates,

heyarecon-siderablyolder than the formativeperiodof thePuranas.As a workinghypothesis,wemayreason-ably assumethat the skeletonframework

of thelists comprisinghe maingotrasandtheirprimarysubdivisions the ganas), wasalready n existencebefore he endof theso-called Brahmana eriod.The system itself is of coursevery much

older;loutthe hypothesisof a reasonablyearly

outline



4/5

Brzefonxmunication 265connectionbetweenthe lists of sub-families. Itfollowsthat both are independent ecords,dif3Ser-ing possibly n place as well as in time. In thesethe authorshave compiled,within the inheritedframeworkof the main gotras and ganas (withnecessaryadjustments),lists of the subdivisionsactuallyextantwithintheirknowledge.Suchlistsof sub-families parish-registers,s it were neednot have been closed once and for all, and newnamesmaywell have beenadded overa consider-able period,and old namesretainedeven thoughindividualfamilieshad died out. We can in factsee somethingof the sort in the W{an.ndW lists,whosecommonancestor s clearlybasedon the Kand L list (or a close relative); but to the latterit has added n one placeandanothera fair num-ber of additionalnames. (In somecases,this ap-pearancemaybe dueto textualloss in the descentof K and L, and in viewof the deplorable orrup-tion of the tradition,one can seldombe sure.)On p. 203 Rosambiwrites: The position ofthe Jatukarnyass uncertain n the various radi-tions,but this seemsto the translator he fault ofsome ext, not uncertainty f the synthesis. I hadin fact remarked(p. 21n) that the case of theJatukarnyaswas dubious;but this dubiety con-cerns simply the authenticityof the name A triin their pravara. There is of coursenothing in-trinsically improbable n this, for although theJatukarnyasare everywhereecognisedas belong-ing to the Vasisthas, hey could conceivably e advigotra amily,and I certainlywouldnot daretomaintainwith confidence hat they are not. Butthere is equallyno certaintythat Atri is correcthere,for two reasons:first, in placeof this namethe W list givesArtabodhan whichis unlikelyas acorruptionof Atri; and secondly,the form Atrqwof the K andL list is itself anomalous,he regularderivative of Atri being elsewhereuniversallyAtreya. It still seemsto me, therefore, hat thereare adequate rounds or suspecting he text here.(It may be noted that if Atri is a mistake,it issufficientlyearly to have been followed by theMatsyaPurana.)The general question,however,is important.Uncertainty of the synthesis presumablym-plies either that the gotra-structurehad, so tospeak,crystallizedout in differingways in differ-ent localities; or that the theoristswho compiledthe lists werepresentedwith unallocated amilies,which they magisteriallyenrolled accordingtotheir whim in one gotra or another. The latter

may of course have happenedhere and there,thoughI can findno evidence or sucha thing onany extensivescale, and certainlynot in the caseof such major groupings as the EaisyapasandEanvas instancedby Rosambi. But the formeralternative s clearlytrue, as is shownby the di-vergencesof the ganasbetween he variousSutras.In so far as I understand he phrase, herefore,should never have disagreedwith Rosambithatthere is a certaindegreeof uncertainty,in thesynthesis. The difficultys to estimate he extentof this uncertainty,and in severalplacesS:osambiseemsto me too readyto invokeit. For example,I had noted (p. 27) that in the Anandasramaeditionof the Hiranyakeslversionof the lists thelievala Angirasasare completelyomitted, and Ihad remarked hat this was presumablya recentloss. Rosambiobjectsthat there is no materialevidenceof such a loss. It would seem thereforethat he is preparedo believe hat the HiranyakesiSutra never possessed hese names,and that thelist reflectsa society to which the KevalaAngi-rasa familieshad not yet beenadded. I find thismost difficult o accept. Thereseemsno doubt atall that the families n questionareof considerableantiquity, the Ranvas certainly, and the othersprobably, oing backat least to the later Rgvedicperiod;and it is moreoverncredible hat a com-pact group of names, present in all the othersourcesincludingthe closely related Apastamba,should fail to appearherewithouthavingexcitedany comment romthe numerousater writersonthe subject. The commentary rinted n the sameeditionof Hiranyakesl p. 720) actuallydiscussesthe problemof whether the Eapis are RevalaAngirasasor Bharadvajas.AlthoughHiranyakelsl,like Apastamba,includes the Eapis with theBharadvajas,t is inconceivablehat the commen-tatorshouldnot have remarked erethat accord-ing to Hiranyakeslhereare no lELevalangirasasat all, if the latterhad in fact beenmissingfromhis copyof the text. The simplestexplanationtillseemsto me the most probable,namely,that thisgroup of names has disappearedquite recentlythrough the inadvertanceof a scribe, or of theeditorhimself. The shortgap in the Visvamitrasin the sameedition s indisputably lacunacausedby homoioteleuton,nd not a featureof the origi-nal text, sinceit has resulted n the attributionofa wrongpravara.Thelossof the WevalaAngirasascan readilybe accountedor in the sameway: thescribe (or editor) havingpresumablyinished he



5/5

266 Brzef omrn?snicationaforementionedieceof commentaryt the end ofaday; and, returning the following day, andnoticingherethe mentionof the lievala Angira-sas,e wouldthereupon oncludewrongly hat hehad opied their section, would seek for theircolophonn his exemplar, ndwouldcommenceocopygainbeginningwith the Atris.I am a little disturbedat the fact that I amcreditedwith a methodology> in this study,particularlyincethe pointdisputed(the meaningofhe Rgvedic ermari) wasnot in anywayreliedono prove he existenceof e:togamyn the periodofthe Rgveda. I should certainly not wish toderiveAryanexogamy rom this frail support nphilology. On the otherhand,the meaningsug-gested y Benveniste s I think a reasonable ne,and s in keepingwith the theorythat exogamydoes n fact go back to the Rgvedicperiod andbeyond.This howeverwas suggestedmerelyin passing;and he primeobjectof my translationof Puruot-tama'sworkwasto present he system n the formgivenby the Sutra lists. Sosambi remarks hatthegrouping nto eighteenseparatemajorgroupsshowsthat the system is not much older in itspresentform than the Puranas; for, as he says,the numbereighteenhas a specialsanctityin thePurana-Mahabharataomple:S.The last statementis of course rue,but at the sametime it wouldbedangerouso suggestthat everygroupof eighteenwhichwe encounter n Indian historyis on thisaccountartificial. It is in fact well knownthattherewereeighteenmajorPuranas;but it is notuntil the late mediaevalperiodthat the fact ap-pears o havebeennoticed hat therewereeighteenexogamousgotra-groups.So little indeed is thisfact stressedin the texts that the 19th centuryeditorChentsalRao thoughthe had discoveredtfor himself. It seemsto me, therefore, hat themerefact of therebeingeighteenof itself neitherdefinitelyattributes his stageof the systemto the

formativeeriodof the Puranas,nor in fact doesit rove tself to be artificial. liosambicomplains(p. 03) that I showno awareness f the fact thatthe otra system has changed in the course oftime;nd he also remarks(p. 206) on my hy-pothesishat the gotra ist e:tistsas a closedrecordwhichmay be restoredmerelyby inspectionof acorrect anuscript. I regretthat I shouldhavegivenhis impressionand I should never havewishedo maintaineither that the gotra systemwas mmutablenor that the list was a closedrecordor all time. None the less, the Sutralistsdo resentwhatis in a sensea canonical tatementofthe gotra situation, and this is clearly themeasureagainst which later generations werethemselvesccustomedo measure heir ownsoci-ety.And in general, t seems ikelythat except nthe formative period of the lists the tendencywould e to adjustthe societyratherthan the listin orderto provideconformity. There is, there-fore,a sense in which the Sutra list is a finalrecord,and if we are unable to restore it, thisresultsmerelyfrom the inadequacy f the manu-scriptmaterialat ourdisposal.Thepre-Sutraist,aswe haveremarked bove,cannot n any caseberestored y textualcriticism.It is indeedone of the most surprisingaspectsof the whole business, that one should find aEindu scholarin the 17th centurysolemnlyset-ting out to recordas the gotra system a list ofcorruptionsderivedfrom the names of families,someof whichhad alreadybeen e:ttinctfor nighon two thousandyears. These Sutra lists do atleastprovidea measuring od,andit is verymuchto be hopedthat the next step will now be takenby fieldworkersn India itself, to collectdetailedinformation,as ProfessorBLosambirges, aboutactualgotrasclaimedby Brahmansat the presentday,before he systemhas entirelyvanished.

J. BROUGHUNIVERSITY F LONDON


Documents

Additional Notes on the Brahmin Clans - J. Brough