Select your preferred input and type any Sanskrit or English word. Enclose the word in “” for an EXACT match e.g. “yoga”.
     Grammar Search "roman" has 2 results.
romān: masculine accusative plural stem: roma
roman: neuter vocative singular stem: roman
     Amarakosha Search  
Results for roman
Results for roman
romann. (prob. connected with1. ruh-; see loman-) the hair on the body of men and animals, (especially) short hair, bristles, wool, down, nap etc. (less properly applicable to the long hair on the head and beard of men, and to that of the mane and tail of animals) etc. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
romann. the feathers of a bird (see mayūra-r-) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
romann. the scales of a fish (See pṛthu-r-). View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
romanm. plural Name of a people View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
romantham. (perhaps for ruj-m-; see cognate words below) ruminating, chewing the cud etc. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
romantham. chewing (of betel) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
romantham. frequent repetition (confer, compare, gagaṇa-r-). ([ confer, compare Greek , ; Latin e-rugere,ructare,ruminare,fr.rugminare; Slavonic or Slavonian rygati; Lithuanian atru4gas; German itarucchen,itrücken; Anglo-Saxon roccettan,edroccian.]) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
romanthanan. ruminating View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
romanthāyaNom. P. yate-, to ruminate, chew the cud View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
bahuromanm. "having much hair or wool" View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
bahuromanm. a sheep View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
bhayasaṃhṛṣṭaromanmfn. having the hair erect with terror, horrified View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
dīptaromanm. "red-haired", Name of one of the viśve- devā-s View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
dīrgharomanmfn. "long-haired" View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
dīrgharomanm. a bear View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
dīrgharomanm. Name of one of the attendants on śiva- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
gaganaromantham. "ruminating on the sky", nonsense, absurdity View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
gaganaromanthāyitan. "something like ruminating on the sky", absurdity, iv, 48. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
haṃsaromann. equals -tūla- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
hariromanmfn. having fair hair on the body View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
hīnaromanmfn. deprived of hair, bald View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
hiraṇyaromanm. "golden-haired", Name of a loka-pāla- (son of marīci-) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
hiraṇyaromanm. of bhīṣmaka- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
hiraṇyaromanm. of a son of parjanya- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
hiraṇyaromanm. of various ṛṣi-s View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
hrasvaromanm. "short-haired", Name of a king of videha- (son of svarṇa-roman-) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
hṛṣṭaromanmfn. having the hair of the body bristling or thrilling (with delight or rapture) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
hṛṣṭaromanm. Name of an asura- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
kapotaromanm. Name of a king View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
khaḍgaromanm. "sword-haired", Name of the charioteer of jālaṃdhara- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
khararomanm. "having rough hair", Name of one of the nāga- chiefs inhabiting hell View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
kṛtiromanm. Name of a son of kṛti-rāta- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
mahāromanmfn. having large or thick hair on the body (said of śiva-) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
mahāromanm. Name of a king View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
mahāromanm. of the superior of a Buddhist monastery (wrong reading -roma-; see -loman-). View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
mayūraroman(may/ūra--) mfn. "peacock-haired"(said of indra-'s horses) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
mṛduroman(A.) m. "having soft hair", a hare. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
netraromann. the eyelash View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
nīcanakharomanmfn. having short nails and hair View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
nigūḍharomanmfn. having concealed hair View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
piṅgalaromanmfn. tawny-haired (said of a piśāca-) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
prahṛṣṭaromanmfn. one who has erected hair View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
prahṛṣṭaromanm. Name of an asura- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
pṛthuromanm. "having broad hairs or scales", a fish View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
rudraromanf. Name of one of the mātṛ-s attending upon skanda- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
sahasraromann. "having a thousand hairs", a blanket View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
saṃhṛṣṭaromanmfn. one who has the hair of the body bristling (with joy), thrilled, delighted View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
śaṅkharomanm. Name of a serpent-demon View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
śiśuromanm. "having hair like a child", Name of a serpent-demon View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
stabdharomanam. "stiff-haired", a boar, hog View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
sūciromanm. "having needle-like bristles", a hog View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
sūcīromanSee sūci-r- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
suromanm. "fine-haired", Name of a serpent-demon View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
suvarṇaromanmfn. having golden wool View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
suvarṇaromanmfn. gold-haired View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
suvarṇaromanm. a ram View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
suvarṇaromanm. Name of a son of mahā-roman- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
svarṇaromanm. "gold-haired", Name of a king View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
śvāvidromann. the quill of a porcupine View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
śvetaromann. white hair View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
ūrdhvaromanmfn. having the hair of the body erect View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
ūrdhvaromanm. Name of a mountain View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vikīrṇaromann. a kind of fragrant plant View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
     Apte Search  
Results for roman2 results
roman रोमन् n. [रु-मनिन् Uṇ.4.15] 1 The hair on the body of men and animals; especially, short hair, bristles or down; रोमाणि च रहस्यानि सर्वाण्येव विवर्जयेत् Ms. 4.144;8.116; Bhāg.11.18.3. -2 The feathers of birds. -3 The scales of a fish. -Comp. -अङ्कः a mark of hair; बिभ्रती श्वेतरोमाङ्कम् R.1.83. -अङ्कुरः, -अञ्चः a thrill (of rapture, horror, surprise &c.), horripilation; हर्षाद्भुतभयादिभ्यो रोमाञ्चो रोमविक्रिया S. D.167. -अञ्चित a. with the hair erect or thrilled with joy. -अन्तः the hair on the back or upper side of the hand. -आली, -आवलिः, -ली f. 1 a line of hair on the abdomen (above the navel); शिखा धूमस्येयं परिणमति रोमावलिवपुः K. P.1; रोमराजि also. -2 Puberty. -उद्गमः, -उद्भेदः erection of the hair (on the body), thrill, horripilation; रोमोद्गमः प्रादुरभूदुमायाः Ku.7.77. -कर्णकः a hare. -कूपः, -पम्, -गर्तः a pore of the skin; सो$सृजद्रोमकूपेभ्यो रौम्या- न्नाम गणेश्वरान् Mb.12.284.35. -केशरम्, -केसरम्, -गुच्छम् whisk, chowrie. -पुलकः bristling of the hair, thrill; उद्भिन्नरोमपुलकैर्बहुभिः समन्ताज्जागर्ति रक्षति विलोकयति स्मरामि Ch. P.34. -भूमिः f. 'the place of the hair', i. e. the skin. -रन्ध्रम् a pore of the skin. -राजिः, -जी, -लता f. a line of hair on the abdomen (above the navel); रराज तन्वी नवरो (लो) मराजिः Ku.1.38; Śi.9.22. -वाहिन् a. cutting-off hair. -विकारः, -विक्रिया, -विभेदः thrill, horripilation; शंसति स्म घनरोमविभेदः Ki. 9.46; प्रतिक्षणं सा कृतरोमविक्रियाम् Ku.5.1. -विध्वंसः a louse. -शातनम् a depilatory for removing the hair. -सूची a hair-pin. -हर्षः bristling of the hair, thrill; वेपथुश्च शरीरे मे रोमहर्षश्च जायते Bg.1.29. -हर्षण a. causing thrill or horripilation, thrilling, awe-inspiring; एतानि खलु सर्वभूतरो (लो) महर्षणानि दीर्घारण्यानि U.2; संवादमिम- मश्रौषमद्भुतं रोमहर्षणम् Bg.18.74. (-णः) N. of Sūta, a pupil of Vyāsa who narrated several Purāṇas to Śaunaka. (-णम्) erection of hair on the body, thrill. -हृत् n. sulpuret of arsenic.
romanthaḥ रोमन्थः [रोगं मथ्नाति मन्थ्-अण् पृषो˚ गलोपः Tv.] 1 Ruminating, chewing the cud; उद्गीर्णस्य वा अवगीर्णस्य वा मन्थो रोमन्थः Mbh.; छायाबद्धकदम्बकं मृगकुलं रोमन्थमभ्यस्यतु Ś.2.6. -2 (Hence) Frequent repetition.
     Macdonell Search  
Results for roman3 results
roman n. hair on the body of men and animals (gnly. excluding the long hair of the head, beard, mane, or tail); plumage; fish-scales (rare).
romantha m. ruminating, chewing the cud; chewing (of betel); frequent repe tition.
romanthāya den. Â. chew the cud.
     Vedic Index of
     Names and Subjects  
11 results
upasti Denotes both in the Rigveda and the Atharvaveda a ‘dependent,’ just as later in the Epic the subordination of the Vaiśya to the two superior castes is expressed by the verb upa-sthā, ‘stand under,’ support.’ The word also appears, with the same sense, in the form of Sti, but only in the Rigveda. The exact nature of the dependence connoted by the term is quite uncertain. Zimmer conjectures that the *dependents ’ were the members of defeated Aryan tribes who became clients of the king, as among the Greeks, Romans, and Germans, the term possibly including persons who had lost their freedom through dicing. The evidence of the Athar¬vaveda shows that among the Upastis were included the chariot-makers (ratha-kāra), the smiths (taksan), and the charioteers (sūta), and troop-leaders (grāma-nī), while the Rigveda passages negative the possibility of the subjects ’ (s&‘) being the whole people. It is therefore fair to assume that they were the clients proper of the king, not servile, but attached in a special relation to him as opposed to the ordinary population. They may well have included among them not only the classes suggested by Zimmer, but also higher elements, such as refugees from other clans, as well as ambitious men who sought advancement in the royal service. Indeed, the Sūta and the Grāmanī were, as such, officers of the king’s house¬holdkingmakers, not themselves kings, as they are described in the Atharvaveda. The use of the word in the Taittirīya Samhitā, the Taittirīya Brāhmana, and the Kāthaka, is purely metaphorical, as well as in the one passage of the Rigveda in which it occurs. In the Paippalāda recension of the Atharvaveda,Vaiśya, Sūdra, and Arya are referred to as Upastis, perhaps in the general sense of ‘subject.’
nakṣatra Is a word of obscure origin and derivation. The Indian interpreters already show a great divergence of opinion as to its primary meaning. The śatapatha Brāhmana re­solves it into na-ksatra (‘ no power ’), explaining it by a legend. The Nirukta refers it to the root naks, ‘obtain/ following the Taittirīya Brāhmana. Aufrecht and Weber derived it from nakta-tra, ‘ guardian of night/ and more recently the derivation from nak-ksatra, ‘ having rule over night/ seems to be gaining acceptance. The generic meaning of the word therefore seems to be ‘star/ The Naksatras as Stars in the Rigveda and Later.—The sense of star ’ appears to be adequate for all or nearly all the passages in which Naksatra occurs in the Rigveda. The same sense occurs in the later Samhitās also : the sun and the Naksatras are mentioned together, or the sun, the moon, and the Naksatras, or the moon and the Naksatras, or the Naksatras alone; but there is no necessity to attribute to the word the sense of lunar mansion ’ in these passages. On the other hand, the names of at least three of the Naksatras in the later sense occur in the Rigveda. Tisya, however, does not seem to be mentioned as a lunar mansion. With Aghās (plur.) and Arjunī (dual) the case is different: it seems probable that they are the later lunar mansions called Maghās (plur.) and Phālgunī (dual). The names appear to have been deliberately changed in the Rigveda, and it must be remembered that the hymn in which they occur, the wedding hymn of Sūryā, has no claim to great age. Ludwig and Zimmer have seen other references to the Naksatras as 27 in the Rigveda, but these seem most improbable. Nor do the adjectives revatī (£ rich ’) and punarvasīi (‘ bringing wealth again’) in another hymn appear to refer to the Naksatras. The Naksatras as Lunar Mansions.—In several passages of the later Samhitās the connexion of the moon and the Naksatras is conceived of as a marriage union. Thus in the Kāthaka and Taittirīya Samhitās it is expressly stated that Soma was wedded to the mansions, but dwelt only with Rohinī; the others being angry, he had ultimately to undertake to live with them all equally. Weber hence deduced that the Naksatras were regarded as of equal extent, but this is to press the texts unduly, except in the sense of approximate equality. The number of the mansions is not stated as 27 in the story told in the two Samhitās: the Taittīriya has, and the Kāthaka no number; but 27 appears as their number in the list which is found in the Taittirīya Samhitā and elsewhere. The number 28 is much less well attested: in one passage of the Taittirīya Brāhmana Abhijit is practically marked as a new comer, though in a later book, in the Maitrāyanī Samhitā, and in the Atharvaveda list,27 it has found acceptance. It is perfectly possible that 28 is the earlier number, and that Abhijit dropped out because it was faint, or too far north, or because 27 was a more mystic (3x3x3) number: it is significant that the Chinese Sieou and the Arabic Manāzil are 28 in number.28 Weber, however, believes that 27 is the older number in India. The meaning of the number is easily explained when it is remembered that a periodic month occupies something between 27 and 28 days, more nearly the former number. Such a month is in fact recognized in the Lātyāyana and Nidāna Sūtras as consisting of 27 days, 12 months making a year of 324 days, a Naksatra year, or with an intercalary month, a year of 351 days. The Nidāna Sūtra makes an attempt to introduce the Naksatra reckoning into the civil or solar (sāvana) year of 360 days, for it holds that the sun spends 13J• days in each Naksatra (13^x27 = 360). But the month of 27 or 28 days plays no part in the chronological calculations of the Veda. The Names of the Naksatras.—In addition to the two mentioned in the Rigveda, the earlier Atharvaveda gives the names of Jyesthaghnī (the later Jyesthā) and Vicrtau, which are mentioned as in close connexion, and of Revatīs (plural) and Kyttikās. With reference to possible times for the ceremony of the Agnyādhāna, or Maying of the sacred fires/ the Kāthaka Samhitā, the Maitrāyanī Samhitā, and the Taittirīya Brāhmana mention the Naksatras called Krttikās, Rohinī, Phalgunyas, Hasta; the latter Brāhmana adds Punar- vasū, and in an additional remark excludes Pūrve Phālgunī in favour of Uttare Phālgunī. The śatapatha Brāhmana adds Mrgaśīrsa and Citrā as possibilities. On the other hand, Punarvasū is recommended by all authorities as suitable for the Punarādheya, 'relaying of the sacred fires,’ which takes place if the first fire has failed to effect the aim of its existence, the prosperity of the sacrificer. The Kāthaka Samhitā, however, allows Anurādhās also. In the ceremony of the Agnicayana, or 'piling of the fire- altar,’ the bricks are assumed to be equal in number to the Naksatras. The bricks number 756, and they are equated to 27 Naksatras multiplied by 27 secondary Naksatras, reckoned as 720 (instead of 729), with the addition of 36 days, the length of an intercalary month. Nothing can be usefully derived from this piece of priestly nonsense. But in connexion with this ceremony the Yajurveda Samhitās enumerate the 27, The Taittirīya Brāhmana has a list of the Naksatras which agrees generally with the list of the Samhitās. It runs as follows: Kyttikās, Rohinī, Invakās, Bāhū (dual), Tisya, Aśleṣās, Maghās, Pūrve Phālgunī, Uttare Phālgunī, Hasta, Citrā, Nistyā, Viśākhe, Anūrādhās, Rohinī, Mūlabarhanī, Pūrvā Asādhās', Uttarā Asādhās, Sronā, Sravisthās, Satabhisaj, Pūrve Prosthapadās, Uttare Prosthapadās, Revatī, Aśvayujau, Apabharanīs. In a later book, however, the list grows to 28, and the full moon is inserted after number 14, and the new moon after number, as an attempt to bring the Naksatra (lunar) month into accordance with the Sāvana (solar) month of 30 days. The names in this second list are as in the Samhitās with the following exceptions. The seven stars of the Krttikās are named as Ambā, Dulā, Nitatnī, Abhrayantī, Meghayantī, Varsayantī, Cupunīkā, names found also in the Taittirīya and Kāthaka Samhitās. Beside Mrgaśīrsa, Invakās are also mentioned. Then come Ardrā, Punarvasū, Tisya, Aśresās, Maghās (beside which Anaghās, Agadās, and Arun- dhatīs are also mentioned), Phalgunyas (but elsewhere in the dual, Phalgunyau), Phalgunyas, Hasta, Citrā, Nistyā, Viśākhe, Anūrādhās, Jyesthā, Mūla, Asādhās, Asā(jhās, Abhijit, śronā, Sravisthās, Satabhisaj, Prosthapadās, Prosthapadās, Revatī, Aśvayujau, Bharanyas, but also Apabharanīs. Abhijit, which occurs also in an earlier part of the Brāhmana, is perhaps interpolated. But Weber’s argument that Abhijit is out of place in this list because Brāhmana is here mentioned as the 28th Naksatra, loses some force from the fact (of course unknown to him) that the list in the Maitrāyanī Samhitā contains 28 Naksatras, including Abhijit, and adds Brāhmana at the end as another. In another passage the Taittirīya Brāhmana divides the Naksatras into two sets, the Deva Naksatras and the Yama Naksatras, being 1-14 and 15-27 (with the omission of Abhijit) respectively. This division corresponds with one in the third book of the Brāhmana60 where the days of the light half of the month and those of the dark half are equated with the Naksatras. The Brāhmana treats the former series as south, the latter as north; but this has no relation to facts, and can only be regarded as a ritual absurdity. The late nineteenth book of the Atharvaveda contains a list of the Naksatras, including Abhijit. The names here (masc.), Viśākhe, Anurādhā, Jyesthā, Mūla, Pūrvā Asādhās, Uttarā Asādhās, Abhijit, śravana, śravisthās, śatabhisaj, Dvayā Prosthapadā, Revatī, Aśvayujau, Bharanyas. The Position of the Naksatras.—There is nothing definite in Vedic literature regarding the position of most of the Naksatras, but the later astronomy precisely locates all of them, and its statements agree on the whole satisfactorily with what is said in the earlier texts, though Weber was inclined to doubt this. The determinations adopted below are due to Whitney in his notes on the Sūrya Siddhānta. 1.Krttikās are unquestionably η Tauri, etc., the Pleiades. The names of the seven stars forming this constellation, and given above from Yajurveda texts, include three --------abhrayantī, forming clouds meghayantī, ‘making cloudy’; varsayantī, ‘causing rain’—which clearly refer to the rainy Pleiades. The word krttikā possibly means ‘web/ from the root krt, spin.’ 2. Rohinī, ‘ ruddy,’ is the name of the conspicuously reddish star, a Tauri or Aldebaran, and denotes the group of the Hyades, <* θ y 8 e Tauri. Its identification seems absolutely assured by the legend of Prajāpati in the Aitareya Brāhmana. He is there represented as pursuing his daughter with incestuous intention, and as having been shot with an arrow (Isu Trikāndā, ‘ the belt of Orion ’) by the huntsman ’ (Mrgavyādha, Sirius ’). Prajāpati is clearly Orion (Mrgaśiras being the name of the little group of stars in Orion’s head). 3.Mrgaśīrsa or Mrgaśiras, also called Invakā or Invagā, seems to be the faint stars λ, φ,1 φ2 Orionis. They are called Andhakā, * blind,’ in the śāntikalpa of the Atharvaveda, probably because of their dimness. 4.Ardrā, ‘ moist,’ is the name of the brilliant star, α Orionis. But the names by which it is styled, in the plural as Árdrās in the śāñkhāyana Grhya Sūtra and the Naksatrakalpa, and in the dual as Bāhú, in the Taittirīya Brāhmana, point to a constellation of two or more stars, and it may be noted that the corresponding Chinese Sieou includes the seven brilliant stars composing the shoulders, the belt, and the knees of Orion. 5. Punarvasu, the two that give wealth again,’ denotes the two stars, a and β Geminorum, on the heads of Castor and Pollux. The name is no doubt connected with the beneficent character of the Aśvins, who correspond to the Dioscuri. 6.Tisya or Pusya includes the somewhat faint group in the body of the Crab, 7, δ, and θ Cancri. The singular is rather curious, as primarily one star would seem to have been meant, and none of the group is at all prominent. 7. Aśresās or Aślesās, which in some texts is certainly to be read Aśresās or Aślesas, denotes δ, e, η, p, σ, and perhaps also ζ, Hydrse. The word means ‘embracer,’ a name which admirably fits the constellation. 8. Maghās, the ‘bounties,’ are the Sickle, or α, γ, ζ, μ, e Leonis. The variants Anaghā, the ‘ sinless one,’ etc.,clearly refer to the auspicious influence of the constellation. 9. 10. Phālgunī, Phalgunyau, Phalgū, Phalg-unīs, Phal- gunyas, is really a double constellation, divided into Pūrve, ‘ former,’ and Uttare, ‘latter.’ The former is δ and θ Leonis, the latter β and Leonis. According to Weber, the word denotes, like Arjunī, the variant of the Rigveda, a ‘ bright- coloured ’ constellation. 11. Hasta, ‘hand,’ is made up of the five conspicuous stars (δ> Ί, e, a, β) in Corvus, a number which the word itself suggests. According to Geldner, the ‘ five bulls ’ of the Rigveda are this constellation. 12. Citrā, ‘bright,’ is the beautiful star, a Virginis. It is mentioned in a legend of Indra in the Taittirīya Brāhmana, and in that of the ‘ two divine dogs ’ (divyau śvānau) in the śatapatha Brāhmana. 13. Svāti or Nistyā is later clearly the brilliant star Arcturus or a Bootis, its place in the north being assured by the notice in the śāntikalpa, where it is said to be ‘ ever traversing the northern way ’ (nityam uttara-mārgagam). The Taittirīya Brāhmana, however, constructs an asterismal Prajāpati, giving him Citrā (α Virginis) for head, Hasta (Corvus) for hand, the Viśākhe (α and β Librae) for thighs, and the Anurādhās (β, δ, and 7r Scorpionis) for standing place, with Nistyā for heart. But Arcturus, being 30° out, spoils this figure, while, on the other hand, the Arabic and Chinese systems have respectively, instead of Arcturus, Virginis and κ Virginis, which would well fit into the Prajāpati figure. But in spite of the force of this argument of Weber’s, Whitney is not certain that Nistyā here must mean a star in Virgo, pointing out that the name Nistyā, ‘outcast,’ suggests the separation of this Naksatra from the others in question. 14.Viśākhe is the couple of stars a and β Librae. This mansion is later called Rādhā according to the Amarakośa, and it is curious that in the Atharvaveda the expression rādho Viśākhe, the Viśākhe are prosperity,’ should occur. But probably Rādhā is merely an invention due to the name of the next Naksatra, Anurādhā, wrongly conceived as meaning that which is after or follows Rādhā.’ 15. Anūrādhās or Anurādhā, propitious,’ is β, δ, and tγ (perhaps also p) Scorpionis. 16. Rohinī, ‘ ruddy ’; Jyesthaghnī, * slaying the eldest ’; or Jyesthā, ‘eldest,’ is the name of the constellation σ, α, and τ Scorpionis, of which the central star, a, is the brilliant reddish Antares (or Cor Scorpionis). 17.Vicrtau, ‘ the two releasers ’; Mūla, ‘ root or Mūla- barhanī, ‘ uprooting,’ denote primarily λ and v at the extremity of the tail of the Scorpion, but including also the nine or eleven stars from e to v. 18.19. Asādhās (‘ unconquered ’), distinguished as Pūrvās, ‘ former,’ and Uttarās, ‘ latter,’ are really two constellations, of which the former is composed of γ, δ, e, and η Sagittarii, or of 8 and e only, and the latter of θ, σ, t, and ξ Sagittarii, or of two, σ and ζ, only. It is probable that originally only four stars forming a square were meant as included in the whole constellation —viz., σ and f, with 8 and e. 20. Abhijit is the brilliant star a Lyrse with its two companions e and ζ. Its location in 6o° north latitude is completely discordant with the position of the corresponding Arabian and Chinese asterisms. This fact is considered by Oldenberg to support the view that it was a later addition to the system; its occurrence, however, as early as the Maitrāyanī Samhitā, which he does not note, somewhat invalidates that view. In the Taittirīya Brāhmana Abhijit is said to be ‘over Asādhās, under śronā,’ which Weber held to refer to its position in space, inferring thence that its Vedic position corresponded to that of the Arab Manāzil and the Chinese Sieou—viz., a, β Capricorni. But Whitney argues effectively that the words ‘ over ’ and ‘ under ’ really refer to the place of Abhijit in the list, ‘ after ’ Asādhās and ‘ before ’ Sronā. 21. Sronā, ‘lame,’ or Sravana, ‘ ear,’ denotes the bright star a Aquilai with β below and 7 above it. Weber very need- lessly thinks that the name Sravana suggested two ears and the head between. It is quite out of correspondence with the Manāzil and the Sieou, and is clearly an Indian invention. 22. śravisthās, ‘ most famous,’ or later Dhanisthās, ‘most wealthy,’ is the diamond-shaped group, α, β, δ, and 7, in the Dolphin, perhaps also ζ in the same constellation. Like the preceding Naksatra, it is out of harmony with the Manāzil and Sieou. 23. Satabhisaj or śatabhisa, ‘having a hundred physicians,’ seems to be λ Aquarii with the others around it vaguely conceived as numbering a hundred. 24. 25. Prostha-padās (fem. plur.), ‘ feet of a stool,’ or later Bhadra-padās,100 ‘auspicious feet,’ a double asterism forming a square, the former (pūrva) consisting of a and β Pegasi, the latter (uttara) of γ Pegasi and a Andromedse. 26. Revatī, ‘ wealthy,’ denotes a large number of stars (later 32), of which ζ Piscium, close upon the ecliptic where it was crossed by the equator of about 570 a.d., is given as the southernmost. 27. Aśva-yujau, ‘the two horse-harnessers,’ denotes the stars β and ζ Arietis. Aśvinyau101 and Aśvinī102 are later names. 28. Apabharanīs, Bharanīs, or Bharanyas, ‘ the bearers,’ is the name of the small triangle in the northern part of the Ram known as Musca or 35, 39, and 41 Arietis. The Naksatras and the Months.—In the Brāhmanas the Naksatra names are regularly used to denote dates. This is done in two ways. The name, if not already a feminine, may be turned into a feminine and compounded with pūrna-māsa, ‘the full moon,’ as in Tisyā-pūrnamāsa, ‘the full moon in the Naksatra Tisya.’103 Much more often, however, it is turned into a derivative adjective, used with paurnamāsī, ‘the full moon (night)/ or with amāvāsyā, ‘the new moon (night)/ as in Phālgunī paurnamāsl, ‘the full-moon night in the Naksatra Phālgunī’;104 or, as is usual in the Sūtras, the Naksatra adjective alone is used to denote the full-moon night. The month itself is called by a name derived105 from that of a Naksatra, but only Phālguna,106 Caitra,107 Vaiśākha,108 Taisya,109 Māgha110 occur in the Brāhmanas, the complete list later being Phālguna, Caitra, Vaiśākha, Jyaistha, Asādha, Srāvana, Prausthapada, Aśvayuja, Kārttika, Mārgaśīrsa, Taisya, Māgha. Strictly speaking, these should be lunar months, but the use of a lunar year was clearly very restricted: we have seen that as early as the Taittirīya Brāhmana there was a tendency to equate lunar months with the twelve months of thirty days which made up the solar year (see Māsa). The Naksatras and Chronology.—(i) An endeavour has been made to ascertain from the names of the months the period at which the systematic employment of those names was intro¬duced. Sir William Jones111 refers to this possibility, and Bentley, by the gratuitous assumption that śrāvana always marked the summer solstice, concluded that the names of the months did not date before b.c. Ii8I. Weber112 considered that there was a possibility of fixing a date by this means, but Whitney113 has convincingly shown that it is an impossible feat, and Thibaut114 concurs in this view. Twelve became fixed as the number of the months because of the desire, evident in the Brāhmanas, somehow or other to harmonize lunar with solar time; but the selection of twelve Naksatras out of twenty-seven as connected with the night of full moon can have no chronological significance, because full moon at no period occurred in those twelve only, but has at all periods occurred in every one of the twenty-seven at regularly recurrent intervals. (2) All the lists of the Naksatras begin with Krttikās. It is only fair to suppose that there was some special reason for this fact. Now the later list of the Naksatras begins with Aśvinī, and it was unquestionably rearranged because at the time of its adoption the vernal equinox coincided with the star ζ Piscium on the border of Revatī and Aśvinī, say in the course of the sixth century A.D. Weber has therefore accepted the view that the Krttikās were chosen for a similar reason, and the date at which that Naksatra coincided with the vernal equinox has been estimated at some period in the third millennium B.C. A very grave objection to this view is its assumption that the sun, and not the moon, was then regarded as connected with the Naksatras; and both Thibaut and Oldenberg have pronounced decidedly against the idea of connecting the equinox with the Krttikās. Jacobi has contended that in the Rigveda the commencement of the rains and the summer solstice mark the beginning of the new year and the end of the old, and that further the new year began with the summer solstice in Phālgunī.121 He has also referred to the distinction of the two sets of Deva and Yama Naksatras in the Taittirīya Brāhmana as supporting his view of the connexion of the sun and the Naksatras. But this view is far from satisfactory: the Rigveda passages cannot yield the sense required except by translating the word dvādaśa123 as 4 the twelfth (month) * instead of consisting of twelve parts,’ that is, ‘year/ the accepted interpretation; and the division of the Naksatras is not at all satisfactorily explained by a supposed connexion with the sun. It may further be mentioned that even if the Naksatra of Krttikās be deemed to have been chosen because of its coincidence with the vernal equinox, both Whitney and Thibaut are pre¬pared to regard it as no more than a careless variant of the date given by the Jyotisa, which puts the winter solstice in Māgha. (3) The winter solstice in Māgha is assured by a Brāhmana text, for the Kausītaki Brāhmana12® expressly places it in the new moon of Māgha (māghasyāmāυāsyāyām). It is not very important whether we take this with the commentators as the new moon in the middle of a month commencing with the day after full moon in Taisa, or, which is much more likely, as the new moon beginning the month and preceding full moon in Māgha. The datum gives a certain possibility of fixing an epoch in the following way. If the end of Revatī marked the vernal equinox at one period, then the precession of the equinoxes would enable us to calculate at what point of time the vernal equinox was in a position corresponding to the winter solstice in Māgha, when the solstitial colure cut the ecliptic at the beginning of Sravisthās. This would be, on the strict theory, in the third quarter of Bharanī, 6f asterisms removed from Sravisthās, and the difference between that and the beginning of Aśvinī = if asterisms = 23 (27 asterisms being = 360°). Taking, the starting-point at 499 a.d., the assured period of Varāha Mihira, Jones arrived at the date B.C. 1181 for the vernal equinox corresponding to the winter solstice in Māgha—that is, on the basis of ι° = 72 years as the precession. Pratt arrived at precisely the same date, taking the same rate of precession and adopting as his basis the ascertained position in the Siddhantas of the junction star of Maghā, a Leonis or Regulus. Davis and Colebrooke arrived at a different date, B.C. 1391, by taking as the basis of their calculation the junction star of Citrā, which happens to be of uncertain position, varying as much as 30 in the different textbooks. But though the twelfth century has received a certain currency as the epoch of the observation in the Jyotisa, it is of very doubtful value. As Whitney points out, it is impossible to say that the earlier asterisms coincided in position with the later asterisms of 13J0 extent each. They were not chosen as equal divisions, but as groups of stars which stood in conjunction with the moon; and the result of subsequently making them strictly equal divisions was to throw the principal stars of the later groups altogether out of their asterisms. Nor can we say that the star ζ Piscium early formed the eastern boundary of Revatī; it may possibly not even have been in that asterism at all, for it is far remote from the Chinese and Arabic asterisms corresponding to Revatī. Added to all this, and to the uncertainty of the starting-point— 582 a.d., 560 a.d., or 491 a.d. being variants —is the fact that the place of the equinox is not a matter accurately determin¬able by mere observation, and that the Hindu astronomers of the Vedic period cannot be deemed to have been very accurate observers, since they made no precise determination of the number of days of the year, which even in the Jyotisa they do not determine more precisely than as 366 days, and even the Sūrya Siddhānta136 does not know the precession of the equinoxes. It is therefore only fair to allow a thousand years for possible errors,137 and the only probable conclusion to be drawn from the datum of the Kausītaki Brāhmana is that it was recording an observation which must have been made some centuries B.C., in itself a result quite in harmony with the probable date of the Brāhmana literature,138 say B.C. 800-600. (4) Another chronological argument has been derived from the fact that there is a considerable amount of evidence for Phālguna having been regarded as the beginning of the year, since the full moon in Phālgunī is often described as the ‘ mouth (mukham) of the year.’139 Jacobi140 considers that this was due to the fact that the year was reckoned from the winter solstice, which would coincide with the month of Phālguna about B.C. 4000. Oldenberg and Thibaut, on the other hand, maintain that the choice of Phālguna as the ‘ mouth ’ of the year was due to its being the first month of spring. This view is favoured by the fact that there is distinct evidence of the correspondence of Phālguna and the beginning of spring : as we have seen above in the Kausītaki Brāhmana, the new moon in Māgha is placed at the winter solstice, which puts the full moon of Phālgunī at a month and a half after the winter solstice, or in the first week of February, a date not in itself improbable for about B.C. 800, and corresponding with the February 7 of the veris initium in the Roman Calendar. This fact accords with the only natural division of the year into three periods of four months, as the rainy season lasts from June 7-10 to October 7-10, and it is certain that the second set of four months dates from the beginning of the rains (see Cāturmāsya). Tilak, on the other hand, holds that the winter solstice coincided with Māghī full moon at the time of the Taittirīya Samhitā (b.c. 2350), and had coincided with Phālgunī and Caitrī in early periods—viz., B.C. 4000-2500, and B.C. 6000¬4000. (5) The passages of the Taittirīya Samhitā and the Pañca¬vimśa Brāhmana, which treat the full moon in Phālguna as the beginning of the year, give as an alternative the full moon in Caitra. Probably the latter month was chosen so as to secure that the initial day should fall well within the season of spring, and was not, as Jacobi believes, a relic of a period when the winter solstice corresponded with Caitra. Another alternative is the Ekāstakā, interpreted by the commentators as the eighth day after the full moon in Maghās, a time which might, as being the last quarter of the waning half of the old year, well be considered as representing the end of the year. A fourth alternative is the fourth day before full moon; the full moon meant must be that of Caitra, as Álekhana quoted by Ápastamba held, not of Māgha, as Asmarathya, Laugāksi and the Mīmāmsists believed, and as Tilak believes. (6) Others, again, according to the Grhya ritual, began the year with the month Mārgaśīrsa, as is shown by its other name Agrahāyana (‘ belonging to the commencement of the year ’). Jacobi and Tilak think that this one denoted the autumn equinox in Mrgaśiras, corresponding to the winter solstice in Phālgunī. But, as Thibaut shows clearly, it was selected as the beginning of a year that was taken to commence with autumn, just as some took the spring to commence with Caitra instead of Phālguna. (7) Jacobi has also argued, with the support of Buhler, from the terms given for the beginning of Vedic study in the Grhya Sūtras, on the principle that study commenced with the rains (as in the Buddhist vassā) which mark the summer solstice. He concludes that if Bhādrapada appears as the date of commencing study in some texts, it was fixed thus because at one time Prosthapadās (the early name of Bhadra- padās) coincided with the summer solstice, this having been the case when the winter solstice was in Phālguna. But Whitney155 has pointed out that this argument is utterly illegitimate; we cannot say that there was any necessary connexion between the rains and learning—a month like Srāvana might be preferred because of its connexion with the word Sravana, 4 ear ’—and in view of the precession of the equinoxes, we must assume that Bhādrapada was kept because of its traditional coincidence with the beginning of the rains after it had ceased actually so to coincide. the other astronomical phenomena; the discovery of a series of 27 lunar mansions by them would therefore be rather surprising. On the other hand, the nature of such an operation is not very complicated ; it consists merely in selecting a star or a star group with which the moon is in conjunction. It is thus impossible a priori to deny that the Vedic Indians could have invented for themselves a lunar Zodiac. But the question is complicated by the fact that there exist two similar sets of 28 stars or star groups in Arabia and in China, the Manāzil and the Sieou. The use of the Manāzil in Arabia is consistent and effective ; the calendar is regulated by them, and the position of the asterisms corresponds best with the positions required for a lunar Zodiac. The Indians might therefore have borrowed the system from Arabia, but that is a mere possibility, because the evidence for the existence of the Manāzil is long posterior to that for the existence of the Naksatras, while again the Mazzaroth or Mazzaloth of the Old Testament may really be the lunar mansions. That the Arabian system is borrowed from India, as Burgess held, is, on the other hand, not at all probable. Biot, the eminent Chinese scholar, in a series of papers published by him between. 1839 and 1861, attempted to prove the derivation of the Naksatra from the Chinese Sieou. The latter he did not regard as being in origin lunar mansions at all. He thought that they were equatorial stars used, as in modern astronomy, as a standard to which planets or other stars observed in the neighbourhood can be referred; they were, as regards twenty-four of them, selected about B.C. 2357 on account of their proximity to the equator, and of their having the same right ascension as certain circumpolar stars which had attracted the attention of Chinese observers. Four more were added in B.C. IIOO in order to mark the equinoxes and solstices of the period. He held that the list of stars commenced with Mao (= Krttikās), which was at the vernal equinox in B.C. 2357. Weber, in an elaborate essay of i860, disputed this theory, and endeavoured to show that the Chinese literary evidence for the Sieou was late, dating not even from before the third century B.C. The last point does not appear to be correct, but his objections against the basis of Biot’s theory were rein¬forced by Whitney, who insisted that Biot’s supposition of the Sieou’s not having been ultimately derived from a system of lunar mansions, was untenable. This is admitted by the latest defender of the hypothesis of borrowing from China, Lśopold de Saussure, , but his arguments in favour of a Chinese origin for the Indian lunar mansions have been refuted by Oldenberg, who has also pointed out that the series does not begin with Mao ( = Krttikās). There remains only the possibility that a common source for all the three sets—Naksatra, Manāzil, and Sieou—may be found in Babylonia. Hommel has endeavoured to show that recent research has established in Babylonia the existence of a lunar zodiac of twenty-four members headed by the Pleiades ( = Krttikās); but Thibaut’s researches are not favourable to this claim. On the other hand, Weber, Whitney, Zimmer, and Oldenberg all incline to the view that in Babylonia is to be found the origin of the system, and this must for the present be regarded as the most probable view, for there are other traces of Babylonian influence in Vedic literature, such as the legend of the flood, perhaps the Adityas, and possibly the word Manā.
nātha In Vedic literature appears only as a neuter meaning protection,’ and is of rare occurrence. Generally, too, very little appears in Vedic literature of practices such as those which produced Anglo-Saxon society or the Roman patroηatus.
pathikṛt ‘Path-maker,’ is not a rare epithet in the Rigveda and later, showing clearly the importance naturally attached in primitive times to the finding of roads. The frequency with which the epithet is applied to Agni suggests that there is here an allusion to fire burning the primaeval forest and rendering advance possible. The god Pūsan is pathi-krt, as guarding the flocks. The Rsis,or seers, as path-makers,’ may be compared with the Roman Pontifices.
pitṛ Common from the Rigveda onwards, denotes ‘father, not so much as the ‘begetter’ (janitr) but rather as the pro­tector of the child, this being probably also the etymological sense of the word. The father in the Rigveda stands for all that is good and kind. Hence Agni is compared with a father, while Indra is even dearer than a father. The father carries his son in his arms, and places him on his lap, while the child pulls his garment to attract attention. In later years the son depends on his father for help in trouble, and greets him with joy. It is difficult to ascertain precisely how far the son was subject to parental control, and how long such control continued. Reference is made in the Rigveda to a father’s chastising his son for gambling, and Rjrāśva is said to have been blinded by his father. From the latter statement Zimmer infers the existence of a developed patria potestas, but to lay stress on this isolated and semi-mythical incident would be unwise. It is, however, quite likely that the patria potestas was originally strong, for we have other support for the thesis in the Roman patria potestas. If there is no proof that a father legally controlled his son’s wedding, and not much that he controlled his daughter’s, the fact is in itself not improbable. There is again no evidence to show whether a son, when grown up, normally continued to stay with his father, his wife becoming a member of the father’s household, or whether he set up a house of his own : probably the custom varied. Nor do we know whether the son was granted a special plot of land on marriage or otherwise, or whether he only came into such property after his father’s death. But any excessive estimate of the father’s powers over a son who was no longer a minor and naturally under his control, must be qualified by the fact that in his old age the sons might divide their father’s property, or he might divide it amongst them, and that when the father-in-law became aged he fell under the control of his son’s wife. There are also obscure traces that in old age a father might be exposed, though there is no reason to suppose that this was usual in Vedic India. Normally the son was bound to give his father full obedience. The later Sūtras show in detail the acts of courtesy which he owed his father, and they allow him to eat the remnants of his father’s food. On the other hand, the father was expected to be kind. The story of Sunahśepa in the Aitareya Brāh-mana emphasizes the horror with which the father’s heartless treatment of his son was viewed. The Upanisads insist on the spiritual succession from father to son. The kissing of a son was a frequent and usual token of affection, even in mature years. On the failure of natural children, adoption was possible. It was even resorted to when natural children existed, but when it was desired to secure the presence in the family of a person of specially high qualifications, as in Visvamitra’s adoption of Sunahśepa. It is not clear that adoption from one caste into another was possible, for there is no good evidence that Viśvāmitra was, as Weber holds, a Ksatriya who adopted a Brāhmana. Adoption was also not always in high favour: it may be accidental or not that a hymn of the Vasistha book of the Rigveda condemns the usage. It was also possible for the father who had a daughter, but no sons, to appoint her to bear a son for him. At any rate the practice appears to be referred to in an obscure verse of the Rigveda as interpreted by Yāska. Moreover, it is possible that the difficulty of a brotherless maiden finding a husband may have been due in part to the possibility of her father desiring to make her a Putrikā, the later technical name for a daughter whose son is to belong to her father’s family. There can be no doubt that in a family the father took precedence of the mother. Delbruck explains away the apparent cases to the contrary. There is no trace of the family as a land-owning corporation. The dual form Pitarau regularly means ‘father and mother,’ ‘parents.
peśas Denotes in the Rigveda and later an embroidered garment such as a female dancer would wear. The fondness of the Indians for such raiment is noted by Megasthenes and by Arrian, who refer to their iσθψ κατάστικτος. So in one passage a garment (vastra) is calledpeśana, with which Roth happily compares the Roman vestis coloribus intexta. The making of such garments was a regular occupation of women, as is indicated by the Peśas-kārī, the ‘ female embroiderer,’ figuring in the list of victims at the Puruṣamedha (‘ human sacrifice’) in the Yajurveda, though the commentator on the Taittirlya Brāhmana interprets the word as ‘ wife of a maker of gold.’ Pischel, however, thinks that Peśas never means anything but colour or form.
mayūra ‘Peacock,’ occurs in the Rigveda in the compounds describing Indra’s horses, mayūra-roman, ‘ with hair like pea­cocks’ feathers,’ and mayūra-śepya, ‘ with tails like those of peacocks.’ The peacock also appears in the list of victims at the Aśvamedha (‘horse sacrifice’) in the Yajurveda Samhitās. The pea-hen, Mayūrī, is mentioned in the Rigveda4 and the Atharvaveda, in both cases with reference to the bird’s efficacy against poison, a curious superstition to be compared with the modern dislike of peacocks’ feathers.
māsa Denotes a 'month' a period of time repeatedly mentioned in the Rigveda and lateṛ The Characteristic days (or rather nights) of the month were those of new moon, Amā-vasya, 'home-staying (night),' and 'of the full moon,' Paurṇa-māsi. Two hymns of the Atharvveda celebrate these days respectively. A personification of the phases of the moon is seen in the four names Sinīvālī the day before new moon; Kuhū also called Guṅgū, the new moon day;Anumati, the day before full moon; and Rākā, the day of new mooṇ The importance of the new and full moon days respectively. One special day in the month, the Ekāṣṭakā, or eighth day after full moon, was importanṭ In the Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa there stated to be in the year twelve such, mentioned between the twelve days of full moon and twelve days of new moon. But one Ekāṣṭakā is referred to in the Yajurveda Saṃhitas and elsewhere as of quite special importance. This was, in the accordant opinion of most comentators, the eighth day after the full moon of Magha. It marked the end of the year, or the begining of the new year. Though the Kauṣītaki Brāmaṇa places places the winter solstice in the new moon of Māgha, the latter date probably means the new moon preceding full moon in Māgha, not the new moon following full moon; but it is perhaps possible to account adequately for the importance of the Ekāstakā as being the first Aṣṭakā after the beginning of the new year. It is not certain exactly how the month was reckoned, whether from the day after new moon to new moon—the system known as amānta, or from the day after full moon to full moon—the pūr- nimānta system, which later, at any rate, was followed in North India, while the other system prevailed in the south. Jacobi argues that the year began in the full moon of Phālguna, and that only by the full moon’s conjunction with the Nakṣatra could the month be known. Oldenberg12 points to the fact that the new moon is far more distinctively an epoch than the full moon; that the Greek, Roman, and Jewish years began with the new moon; and that the Vedic evidence is the division of the month into the former (j>ūrva) and latter (apara) halves, the first being the bright (śukla), the second the dark (krsna) period. Thibaut considers that to assume the existence of the pīirnimānta system for the Veda is unnecessary, though possible. Weber assumes that it occurs in the Kausītaki Brāhmaṇa as held by the scholiasts. But it would probably be a mistake to press that passage, or to assume that the amānta system was rigidly accepted in the Veda: it seems at least as probable that the month was vaguely regarded as beginning with the new moon day, so that new moon preceded full moon, which was in the middle, not the end or. the beginning of the month. That a month regularly had 30 days is established by the conclusive evidence of numerous passages in which the year is given 12 months and 360 days. This month is known from the earliest records, being both referred to directly and alluded to. It is the regular month of the Brāhmaṇas, and must be regarded as the month which the Vedic Indian recognized. No other month is mentioned as such in• the Brāhmaṇa literature ; it is only in the Sūtras that months of different length occur. The Sāmaveda Sūtras10 refer to (i) years with 324 days—i.e., periodic years with 12 months of 27 days each; (2) years with 351 days—i.e., periodic years with 12 months of 27 days each, plus another month of 27 days; (3) years with 354 days—i.e., 6 months of 30 days, and 6 with 29 days, in other words, lunar synodic years; (4) years with 360 days, or ordinary civil (sāvana) years; (5) years with 378 days, which, as Thibaut clearly shows, are third years, in which, after two years of 360 days each, 18 days were added to bring about correspondence between the civil year and the solar year of 366 days. But even the Sāmasūtras do not mention the year of 366 days, which is first known to the Jyotiṣa and to Garga. That the Vedic period was acquainted with the year of 354 days cannot be affirmed with certainty. Zimmer, indeed, thinks that it is proved by the fact that pregnancy is estimated at ten months, or sometimes a year. But Weber may be right in holding that the month is the periodic month of 27 days, for the period is otherwise too long if a year is taken. On the other hand, the period of ten months quite well suits the period of gestation, if birth takes place in the tenth month, so that in this sense the month of 30 days may well be meant. The year of 12 months of 30 days each being admittedly quite unscientific, Zimmer23 is strongly of opinion that it was only used with a recognition of the fact that intercalation took place, and that the year formed part of a greater complex, normally the five year Yuga or cycle. This system is well known from the Jyotiṣa: it consists of 62 months of 29£4 days each = 1,830 days (two of these months being intercalary, one in the middle and one at the end), or 61 months of 30 days, or 60 months of 30^ days, the unit being clearly a solar year of 366 days. It is not an ideal system, since the year is too long; but it is one which cannot be claimed even for the Brāhmaṇa period, during which no decision as to the true length of the year seems to have been arrived at. The references to it seen by Zimmer in the Rigveda are not even reasonably plausible, while the pañcaka yuga, cited by him from the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa, occurs only in a quotation in a commentary, and has no authority for the text itself. On the other hand, there was undoubtedly some attempt to bring the year of 360 days—a synodic lunar year—roughly into connexion with reality. A Sāmasūtra27 treats it as a solar year, stating that the sun perambulates each Naxatra in days, while others again evidently interpolated 18 days every third year, in order to arrive at some equality. But Vedic literature, from the Rigveda downwards,29 teems with the assertion of the difficulty of ascertaining the month. The length is variously given as 30 days, 35 days,31 or 36 days. The last number possibly indicates an intercalation after six years (6x6 = 36, or for ritual purposes 35), but for this we have no special evidence. There are many references to the year having 12 or 13 months. The names of the months are, curiously enough, not at all ancient. The sacrificial texts of the Yajurveda give them in their clearest form where the Agnicayana, ‘building of the fire-altar,’ is described. These names are the following: (1) Madhu, (2) Mādhava (spring months, vāsantikāv rtū); (3) Sukra, (4) Suci (summer months, graismāv rtū); (5) Nabha (or Nabhas), (6) Nabhasya (rainy months, vārsikāv rtū); (7) Iṣa, (8) ūrja (autumn months, śāradāυ rtū); (9) Saha (or Sahas),35 (10) Sahasya (winter months, haimantikāυ rtū); (II) Tapa (or Tapas),35 (12) Tapasya (cool months, śaiśirāv rtū). There are similar lists in the descriptions of the Soma sacrifice and of the horse sacrifice, all of them agreeing in essentials. There are other lists of still more fanciful names, but these have no claim at all to represent actual divisions in popular use. It is doubtful if the list given above is more than a matter of priestly invention. Weber points out that Madhu and Mādhava later appear as names of spring, and that these two are mentioned in the Taittirīya Aranyaka as if actually employed; but the evidence is very inadequate to show that the other names of the months given in the list were in ordinary use. In some of these lists the intercalary month is mentioned. The name given to it in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā is Amhasas- pati, while that given in the Taittirīya and Maitrāyaṇī Sarphitās is Sarpsarpa. The Kāthaka Sarphitā gives it the name of Malimluca, which also occurs elsewhere, along with Samsarpa, in one of the lists of fanciful names. The Atharvaveda describes it as sanisrasa, ‘slipping,’ owing no doubt to its unstable condition. The other method of naming the months is from the Nakçatras. It is only beginning to be used in the Brāhmaṇas, but is found regularly in the Epic and later. The Jyotisa mentions that Māgha and Tapa were identical: this is the fair interpretation of the passage, which also involves the identifica¬tion of Madhu with Caitra, a result corresponding with the view frequently found in the Brāhmanas, that the full moon in Citrā, and not that in Phalgunī, is the beginning of the year. In the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa are found two curious expressions, yava and ayava, for the light and dark halves of the month, which is clearly considered to begin with the light half. Possibly the words are derived, as Eggling thinks, from yu, ‘ ward off,’ with reference to evil spirits. The word Parvan (‘ joint ’ = division of time) probably denotes a half of the month, perhaps already in the Rigveda. More precisely the first half, the time of the waxing light, is called pūrva-paksa, the second, that of the waning light, apara-paka. Either of these might be called a half-month (ardha-ināsa).
varṇa (lit. ‘colour’) In the Rigveda is applied to denote classes of men, the Dāsa and the Aryan Varṇa being contrasted, as other passages show, on account of colour. But this use is confined to distinguishing two colours: in this respect the Rigveda differs fundamentally from the later Samhitās and Brāhmaṇas, where the four castes (varnūh) are already fully recognized. (a) Caste in the Rigveda.—The use of the term Varṇa is not, of course, conclusive for the question whether caste existed in the Rigveda. In one sense it must be admitted to have existed: the Puruṣa-sūkta, ‘hymn of man,’ in the tenth Maṇdala clearly contemplates the division of mankind into four classes—the Brāhmaṇa, Rājanya, Vaiśya, and śūdra. But the hymn being admittedly late,6 its evidence is not cogent for the bulk of the Rigveda.' Zimmer has with great force com- batted the view that the Rigveda was produced in a society that knew the caste system. He points out that the Brāhmaṇas show us the Vedic Indians on the Indus as unbrah- minized, and not under the caste system; he argues that the Rigveda was the product of tribes living in the Indus region and the Panjab; later on a part of this people, who had wandered farther east, developed the peculiar civilization of the caste system. He adopts the arguments of Muir, derived from the study of the data of the Rigveda, viz.: that (a) the four castes appear only in the late Purusasūkta; (6) the term Varṇa, as shown above, covers the three highest castes of later times, and is only contrasted with Dāsa; (c) that Brāhmaṇa is rare in the Rigveda, Kṣatriya occurs seldom, Rājanya only in the Purusasūkta, where too, alone, Vaiśya and śūdra are found; (d) that Brahman denotes at first ‘poet,’ ‘sage,’ and then ‘ officiating priest,’ or still later a special class of priest; (e) that in some only of the passages where it occurs does Brahman denote a ‘priest by profession,’ while in others it denotes something peculiar to the individual, designating a person distinguished for genius or virtue, or specially chosen to receive divine inspiration. Brāhmaṇa, on the other hand, as Muir admits, already denotes a hereditary professional priesthood. Zimmer connects the change from the casteless system of the Rigveda to the elaborate system of the Yajurveda with the advance of the Vedic Indians to the east, comparing the Ger¬manic invasions that transformed the German tribes into monarchies closely allied with the church. The needs of a conquering people evoke the monarch; the lesser princes sink to the position of nobles ; for repelling the attacks of aborigines or of other Aryan tribes, and for quelling the revolts of the subdued population, the state requires a standing army in the shape of the armed retainers of the king, and beside the nobility of the lesser princes arises that of the king’s chief retainers, as the Thegns supplemented the Gesiths of the Anglo-Saxon monarchies. At the same time the people ceased to take part in military matters, and under climatic influences left the conduct of war to the nobility and their retainers, devoting themselves to agriculture, pastoral pursuits, and trade. But the advantage won by the nobles over the people was shared by them with the priesthood, the origin of whose power lies in the Purohitaship, as Roth first saw. Originally the prince could sacrifice for himself and the people, but the Rigveda itself shows cases, like those of Viśvāmitra and Vasiçtha illustrating forcibly the power of the Purohita, though at the same time the right of the noble to act as Purohita is seen in the case of Devāpi Arṣtisena.le The Brahmins saw their opportunity, through the Purohitaship, of gaining practical power during the confusion and difficulties of the wars of invasion, and secured it, though only after many struggles, the traces of which are seen in the Epic tradition. The Atharvaveda also preserves relics of these conflicts in its narration of the ruin of the Spñjayas because of oppressing Brahmins, and besides other hymns of the Atharvaveda, the śatarudriya litany of the Yajurveda reflects the period of storm and stress when the aboriginal population was still seething with discontent, and Rudra was worshipped as the patron god of all sorts of evil doers. This version of the development of caste has received a good deal of acceptance in it's main outlines, and it may almost be regarded as the recognized version. It has, however, always been opposed by some scholars, such as Haug, Kern, Ludwig, and more recently by Oldenberg25 and by Geldner.25 The matter may be to some extent simplified by recognizing at once that the caste system is one that has progressively developed, and that it is not legitimate to see in the Rigveda the full caste system even of the Yajurveda; but at the same time it is difficult to doubt that the system was already well on its way to general acceptance. The argument from the non- brahminical character of the Vrātyas of the Indus and Panjab loses its force when it is remembered that there is much evidence in favour of placing the composition of the bulk of the Rigveda, especially the books in which Sudās appears with Vasiṣṭha and Viśvāmitra, in the east, the later Madhyadeśa, a view supported by Pischel, Geldner, Hopkins,30 and Mac¬donell.81 Nor is it possible to maintain that Brahman in the Rigveda merely means a ‘poet or sage.’ It is admitted by Muir that in some passages it must mean a hereditary profession ; in fact, there is not a single passage in which it occurs where the sense of priest is not allowable, since the priest was of course the singer. Moreover, there are traces in the Rigveda of the threefold or fourfold division of the people into brahma, ksafram, and vitofi, or into the three classes and the servile population. Nor even in respect to the later period, any more than to the Rigveda, is the view correct that regards the Vaiśyas as not taking part in war. The Rigveda evidently knows of no restriction of war to a nobility and its retainers, but the late Atharvaveda equally classes the folk with the bala, power,’ representing the Viś as associated with the Sabhā, Samiti, and Senā, the assemblies of the people and the armed host. Zimmer explains these references as due to tradition only; but this is hardly a legitimate argument, resting, as it does, on the false assumption that only a Kṣatriya can fight. But it is (see Kçatriya) very doubtful whether Kṣatriya means anything more than a member of the nobility, though later, in the Epic, it included the retainers of the nobility, who increased in numbers with the growth of military monarchies, and though later the ordinary people did not necessarily take part in wars, an abstention that is, however, much exaggerated if it is treated as an absolute one. The Kṣatriyas were no doubt a hereditary body; monarchy was already hereditary (see Rājan), and it is admitted that the śūdras were a separate body: thus all the elements of the caste system were already in existence. The Purohita, indeed, was a person of great importance, but it is clear, as Oldenberg37 urges, that he was not the creator of the power of the priesthood, but owed his position, and the influence he could in consequence exert, to the fact that the sacrifice required for its proper performance the aid of a hereditary priest in whose possession was the traditional sacred knowledge. Nor can any argument for the non-existence of the caste system be derived from cases like that of Devāpi. For, in the first place, the Upaniṣads show kings in the exercise of the priestly functions of learning and teaching, and the Upaniṣads are certainly contemporaneous with an elaborated caste system. In the second place the Rigvedic evidence is very weak, for Devāpi, who certainly acts as Purohita, is not stated in the Rigveda to be a prince at all, though Yāska calls him a Kauravya; the hymns attributed to kings and others cannot be vindicated for them by certain evidence, though here, again, the Brāhmaṇas do not scruple to recognize Rājanyarṣis, or royal sages’; and the famous Viśvāmitra shows in the Rigveda no sign of the royal character which the Brāhmaṇas insist on fastening on him in the shape of royal descent in the line of Jahnu. (6) Caste in the later Samhitās and Brāhmanas. The relation between the later and the earlier periods of the Vedic history of caste must probably be regarded in the main as the hardening of a system already formed by the time of the Rigveda. etc. Three castes Brāhmaṇa, Rājan, śūdraare mentioned in the Atharvaveda, and two castes are repeatedly mentioned together, either Brahman and Kṣatra, or Kṣatra and Viś. 2.The Relation of the Castes. The ritual literature is full of minute differences respecting the castes. Thus, for example, the śatapatha prescribes different sizes of funeral mounds for the four castes. Different modes of address are laid down for the four castes, as ehi, approach ’; āgaccha, ‘come’; ādrava, run up ’; ādhāva, hasten up,’ which differ in degrees of politeness. The representatives of the four castes are dedicated at the Puruṣamedha (‘human sacrifice’) to different deities. The Sūtras have many similar rules. But the three upper castes in some respects differ markedly from the fourth, the śūdras. The latter are in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa declared not fit to be addressed by a Dīkṣita, consecrated person,’ and no śūdra is to milk the cow whose milk is to be used for the Agnihotra ('fire-oblation’). On the other hand, in certain passages, the śūdra is given a place in the Soma sacrifice, and in the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa there are given formulas for the placing of the sacrificial fire not only for the three upper castes, but also for the Rathakāra, chariot-maker.’ Again, in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, the Brāhmaṇa is opposed as eater of the oblation to the members of the other three castes. The characteristics of the several castes are given under Brāhmaṇa, Kçatriya and Rājan, Vaiśya, śūdra: they may be briefly summed up as follows : The Viś forms the basis of the state on which the Brahman and Kṣatra rest;®3 the Brahman and Kṣatra are superior to the Viś j®4 while all three classes are superior to the śūdras. The real power of the state rested with the king and his nobles, with their retainers, who may be deemed the Kṣatriya element. Engaged in the business of the protection of the country, its administration, the decision of legal cases, and in war, the nobles subsisted, no doubt, on the revenues in kind levied from the people, the king granting to them villages (see Grāma) for their maintenance, while some of them, no doubt, had lands of their own cultivated for them by slaves or by tenants. The states were seemingly small there are no clear signs of any really large kingdoms, despite the mention of Mahārājas. The people, engaged in agriculture, pastoral pursuits, and trade (Vaṇij), paid tribute to the king and nobles for the protection afforded them. That, as Baden- Powell suggests, they were not themselves agriculturists is probably erroneous; some might be landowners on a large scale, and draw their revenues from śūdra tenants, or even Aryan tenants, but that the people as a whole were in this position is extremely unlikely. In war the people shared the conflicts of the nobles, for there was not yet any absolute separation of the functions of the several classes. The priests may be divided into two classes the Purohitas of the kings, who guided their employers by their counsel, and were in a position to acquire great influence in the state, as it is evident they actually did, and the ordinary priests who led quiet lives, except when they were engaged on some great festival of a king or a wealthy noble. The relations and functions of the castes are well summed up in a passage of the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, which treats of them as opposed to the Kṣatriya. The Brāhmaṇa is a receiver of gifts (ā-dāyī), a drinker of Soma (ā-pāyī), a seeker of food (āvasāyī), and liable to removal at will (yathākāma-prayāpyaīi).n The Vaiśya is tributary to another (anyasya balikrt), to be lived on by another (anyasyādyal}), and to be oppressed at will (yathā- kāma-jyeyal}). The śūdra is the servant of another (anyasya j>resyah), to be expelled at will (kāmotthāpyah), and to be slain at pleasure {yathākāma-vadhyah). The descriptions seem calculated to show the relation of each of the castes to the Rājanya. Even the Brāhmaṇa he can control, whilst the Vaiśya is his inferior and tributary, whom he can remove without cause from his land, but who is still free, and whom he cannot maim or slay without due process. The śūdra has no rights of property or life against the noble, especially the king. The passage is a late one, and the high place of the Kṣatriya is to some extent accounted for by this fact. It is clear that in the course of time the Vaiśya fell more and more in position with the hardening of the divisions of caste. Weber shows reason for believing that the Vājapeya sacrifice, a festival of which a chariot race forms an integral part, was, as the śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra says, once a sacrifice for a Vaiśya, as well as for a priest or king. But the king, too, had to suffer diminution of his influence at the hands of the priest: the Taittirīya texts show that the Vājapeya was originally a lesser sacrifice which, in the case of a king, was followed by the Rājasūya, or consecration of him as an overlord of lesser kings, and in that of the Brahmin by the Bṛhaspatisava, a festival celebrated on his appointment as a royal Purohita. But the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa exalts the Vājapeya, in which a priest could be the sacrificer, over the Rājasūya, from which he was excluded, and identifies it with the Bṛhaspatisava, a clear piece of juggling in the interests of the priestly pretentions. But we must not overestimate the value of such passages, or the exaltation of the Purohita in the later books of the śatapatha and Aitareya Brāhmanas as evidence of a real growth in the priestly power: these books represent the views of the priests of what their own powers should be, and to some extent were in the Madhyadeśa. Another side of the picture is presented in the Pāli literature, which, belonging to a later period than the Vedic, undoubtedly underestimates the position of the priests ; while the Epic, more nearly contemporaneous with the later Vedic period, displays, despite all priestly redaction, the temporal superiority of the nobility in clear light. Although clear distinctions were made between the different castes, there is little trace in Vedic literature of one of the leading characteristics of the later system, the impurity communicated by the touch or contact of the inferior castes, which is seen both directly in the purification rendered necessary in case of contact with a śūdra, and indirectly in the prohibition of eating in company with men of lower caste. It is true that prohibition of eating in company with others does appear, but hot in connexion with caste: its purpose is to preserve the peculiar sanctity of those who perform a certain rite or believe in a certain doctrine; for persons who eat of the same food together, according to primitive thought, acquire the same characteristics and enter into a sacramental communion. But Vedic literature does not yet show that to take food from an inferior caste was forbidden as destroying purity. Nor, of course, has the caste system developed the constitution with a head, a council, and common festivals which the modern caste has; for such an organization is not found even in the Epic or in the Pāli literature. The Vedic characteristics of caste are heredity, pursuit of a common occupation, and restriction on intermarriage. 3. Restrictions on Intermarriage. Arrian, in his Indica, probably on the authority of Megasthenes, makes the prohibi¬tion of marriage between <γevη, no doubt castes,’ a characteristic of Indian life. The evidence of Pāli literature is in favour of this view, though it shows that a king could marry whom he wished, and could make his son by that wife the heir apparent. But it equally shows that there were others who held that not the father’s but the mother’s rank determined the social standing of the son. Though Manu recognizes the possibility of marriage with the next lower caste as producing legitimate children, still he condemns the marriage of an Aryan with a woman of lower caste. The Pāraskara Gṛhya Sūtra allows the marriage of a Kṣatriya with a wife of his own caste or of the lower caste, of a Brahmin with a wife of his own caste or of the two lower classes, and of a Vaiśya with a Vaiśya wife only. But it quotes the opinion of others that all of them can marry a śūdra wife, while other authorities condemn the marriage with a śūdra wife in certain circumstances, which implies that in other cases it might be justified. The earlier literature bears out this impression: much stress is laid on descent from a Rṣi, and on purity of descent ; but there is other evidence for the view that even a Brāhmaṇa need not be of pure lineage. Kavaṣa Ailūṣa is taunted with being the son of a Dāsī, ‘slave woman,’ and Vatsa was accused of being a śūdrā’s son, but established his purity by walking unhurt through the flames of a fire ordeal. He who is learned (śiiśruvān) is said to be a Brāhmaṇa, descended from a Rṣi (1ārseya), in the Taittirīya Samhitā; and Satyakāma, son of Jabālā, was accepted as a pupil by Hāridrumata Gautama, though he could not name his father. The Kāthaka Samhitā says that knowledge is all-important, not descent. But all this merely goes to show that there was a measure of laxity in the hereditary character of caste, not that it was not based on heredity. The Yajurveda Samhitās recognize the illicit union of Árya and śūdrā, and vice versa: it is not unlikely that if illicit unions took place, legal marriage was quite possible. The Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa, indeed, recognizes such a case in that of Dīrghatamas, son of the slave girl Uśij, if we may adopt the description of Uśij given in the Brhaddevatā. In a hymn of the Atharvaveda extreme claims are put forward for the Brāhmaṇa, who alone is a true husband and the real husband, even if the woman has had others, a Rājanya or a Vaiśya: a śūdra Husband is not mentioned, probably on purpose. The marriage of Brāhmaṇas with Rājanya women is illustrated by the cases of Sukanyā, daughter of king śaryāta, who married Cyavana, and of Rathaviti’s daughter, who married śyāvāśva. 4.Occupation and Caste.—The Greek authorities and the evidence of the Jātakas concur in showing it to have been the general rule that each caste was confined to its own occupations, but that the Brāhmaṇas did engage in many professions beside that of simple priest, while all castes gave members to the śramaṇas, or homeless ascetics. The Jātakas recognize the Brahmins as engaged in all sorts of occupations, as merchants, traders, agriculturists, and so forth. Matters are somewhat simpler in Vedic literature, where the Brāhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas appear as practically confined to their own professions of sacrifice and military or administrative functions. Ludwig sees in Dīrgliaśravas in the Rigveda a Brahmin reduced by indigence to acting as a merchant, as allowed even later by the Sūtra literature; but this is not certain, though it is perfectly possible. More interesting is the question how far the Ksatriyas practised the duties of priests; the evidence here is conflicting. The best known case is, of course, that of Viśvāmitra. In the Rigveda he appears merely as a priest who is attached to the court of Sudās, king of the Tftsus ; but in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa he is called a king, a descendant of Jahnu, and the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa refers to śunahśepa’s succeeding, through his adoption by Viśvāmitra, to the divine lore (daiva veda) of the Gāthins and the lordship of the Jahnus. That in fact this tradition is correct seems most improbable, but it serves at least to illustrate the existence of seers of royal origin. Such figures appear more than once in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, which knows the technical terms Rājanyarçi and Devarājan corresponding to the later Rājarṣi, royal sage.’ The Jaiminiya Brāhmaṇa says of one who knows a certain doctrine, ‘being a king he becomes a seer’ (rājā sann rsir bhavati), and the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmana applies the term Rāj'anya to a Brāhmaṇa. Again, it is argued that Devāpi Árstiseṇa, who acted as Purohita, according to the Rigveda, for śantanu, was a prince, as Yāska says or implies he was. But this assumption seems to be only an error of Yāska’s. Since nothing in the Rigveda alludes to any relationship, it is impossible to accept Sieg’s view that the Rigveda recognizes the two as brothers, but presents the fact of a prince acting the part of Purohita as unusual and requiring explanation. The principle, however, thus accepted by Sieg as to princes in the Rigveda seems sound enough. Again, Muir has argued that Hindu tradition, as shown in Sāyaṇa, regards many hymns of the Rigveda as composed by royal personages, but he admits that in many cases the ascription is wrong; it may be added that in the case of Prthī Vainya, where the hymn ascribed to him seems to be his, it is not shown in the hymn itself that he is other than a seer; the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa calls him a king, but that is probably of no more value than the later tradition as to Viśvāmitra. The case of Viśvantara and the śyāparṇas mentioned in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa has been cited as that of a king sacrificing without priestly aid, but the interpretation iś quite uncertain, while the parallel of the Kaśyapas, Asitamrgas, and Bhūtavīras mentioned in the course of the narrative renders it highly probable that the king had other priests to carry out the sacrifice. Somewhat different are a series of other cases found in the Upaniṣads, where the Brahma doctrine is ascribed to royal persons. Thus Janaka is said in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa to have become a Brahman; Ajātaśatru taught Gārgya Bālāki Pravāhaṇa Jaivali instructed śvetaketu Áruṇeya, as well as śilaka śālāvatya and Caikitāyana Dālbhya; and Aśvapati Kaikeya taught Brahmins. It has been deduced from such passages that the Brahma doctrine was a product of the Kṣatriyas. This conclusion is, however, entirely doubtful, for kings were naturally willing to be flattered by the ascription to them of philosophic activity, and elsewhere the opinion of a Rājanya is treated with contempt. It is probably a fair deduction that the royal caste did not much concern itself with the sacred lore of the priests, though it is not unlikely that individual exceptions occurred. But that warriors became priests, that an actual change of caste took place, is quite unproved by a single genuine example. That it was impossible we cannot say, but it seems not to have taken place. To be distinguished from a caste change, as Fick points out, is the fact that a member of any caste could, in the later period at least, become a śramaṇa, as is recorded in effect of many kings in the Epic. Whether the practice is Vedic is not clear: Yāska records it of Devāpi, but this is not evidence for times much anterior to the rise of Buddhism. On the other hand, the Brahmins, or at least the Purohitas, accompanied the princes in battle, and probably, like the mediaeval clergy, were not unprepared to fight, as Vasistha and Viśvāmitra seem to have done, and as priests do even in the Epic from time to time. But a priest cannot be said to change caste by acting in this way. More generally the possibility of the occurrence of change of caste may be seen in the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa,138 where śyāparṇa Sāyakāyana is represented as speaking of his off¬spring as if they could have become the nobles, priests, and commons of the śalvas; and in the Aitareya Brāhmana,139 where Viśvantara is told that if the wrong offering were made his children would be of the three other castes. A drunken Rṣi of the Rigveda140 talks as if he could be converted into a king. On the other hand, certain kings, such as Para Átṇāra, are spoken of as performers of Sattras, ‘sacrificial sessions.’ As evidence for caste exchange all this amounts to little; later a Brahmin might become a king, while the Rṣi in the Rigveda is represented as speaking in a state of intoxication; the great kings could be called sacrificers if, for the nonce, they were consecrated (dīksita), and so temporarily became Brahmins.The hypothetical passages, too, do not help much. It would be unwise to deny the possibility of caste exchange, but it is not clearly indicated by any record. Even cases like that of Satyakāma Jābāla do not go far; for ex hypothesi that teacher did not know who his father was, and the latter could quite well have been a Brahmin. It may therefore be held that the priests and the nobles practised hereditary occupations, and that either class was a closed body into which a man must be born. These two Varṇas may thus be fairly regarded as castes. The Vaiśyas offer more difficulty, for they practised a great variety of occupations (see Vaiśya). Fick concludes that there is no exact sense in which they can be called a caste, since, in the Buddhist literature, they were divided into various groups, which themselves practised endogamy such as the gahapatis, or smaller landowners, the setthis, or large merchants and members of the various guilds, while there are clear traces in the legal textbooks of a view that Brāhmana and Kṣatriya stand opposed to all the other members of the community. But we need hardly accept this view for Vedic times, when the Vaiśya, the ordinary freeman of the tribe, formed a class or caste in all probability, which was severed by its free status from the śūdras, and which was severed by its lack of priestly or noble blood from the two higher classes in the state. It is probably legitimate to hold that any Vaiśya could marry any member of the caste, and that the later divisions within the category of Vaiśyas are growths of divisions parallel with the original process by which priest and noble had grown into separate entities. The process can be seen to-day when new tribes fall under the caste system: each class tries to elevate itself in the social scale by refusing to intermarry with inferior classes on equal terms—hypergamy is often allowed—and so those Vaiśyas who acquired wealth in trade (śreṣthin) or agriculture (the Pāli Gahapatis) would become distinct, as sub-castes, from the ordinary Vaiśyas. But it is not legitimate to regard Vaiśya as a theoretic caste; rather it is an old caste which is in process of dividing into innumerable sub-castes under influences of occupation, religion, or geographical situation. Fick denies also that the śūdras ever formed a single caste: he regards the term as covering the numerous inferior races and tribes defeated by the Aryan invaders, but originally as denoting only one special tribe. It is reasonable to suppose that śūdra was the name given by the Vedic Indians to the nations opposing them, and that these ranked as slaves beside the three castes—nobles, priests, and people—just as in the Anglo-Saxon and early German constitution beside the priests, the nobiles or eorls, and the ingenui, ordinary freemen or ceorls, there was a distinct class of slaves proper; the use of a generic expression to cover them seems natural, whatever its origin (see śūdra). In the Aryan view a marriage of śūdras could hardly be regulated by rules; any śūdra could wed another, if such a marriage could be called a marriage at all, for a slave cannot in early law be deemed to be capable of marriage proper. But what applied in the early Vedic period became no doubt less and less applicable later when many aboriginal tribes and princes must have come into the Aryan community by peaceful means, or by conquest, without loss of personal liberty, and when the term śūdra would cover many sorts of people who were not really slaves, but were freemen of a humble character occupied in such functions as supplying the numerous needs of the village, like the Caṇdālas, or tribes living under Aryan control, or independent, such as the Niṣādas. But it is also probable that the śūdras came to include men of Aryan race, and that the Vedic period saw the degradation of Aryans to a lower social status. This seems, at any rate, to have been the case with the Rathakāras. In the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa the Rathakāra is placed as a special class along with the Brāhmaṇas, Rājanyas, and Vaiśyas: this can hardly be interpreted except to mean that the Rathakāras were not included in the Aryan classes, though it is just possible that only a subdivision of the Vaiśyas is meant. There is other evidence that the Rathakāras were regarded as śūdras. But in the Atharvaveda the Rathakāras and the Karmāras appear in a position of importance in connexion with the selection of the king; these two classes are also referred to in an honourable way in the Vājasaneyi Sarphitā; in the śata¬patha Brāhmaṇa, too, the Rathakāra is mentioned as a a person of high standing. It is impossible to accept the view suggested by Fick that these classes were originally non- Aryan ; we must recognize that the Rathakāras, in early Vedic times esteemed for their skill, later became degraded because of the growth of the feeling that manual labour was not dignified. The development of this idea was a departure from the Aryan conception; it is not unnatural, however undesirable, and has a faint parallel in the class distinctions of modern Europe. Similarly, the Karmāra, the Takṣan the Carmamna, or ‘tanner,’ the weaver and others, quite dignified occupations in the Rigveda, are reckoned as śūdras in the Pāli texts. The later theory, which appears fully developed in the Dharma Sūtras, deduces the several castes other than the original four from the intermarriage of the several castes. This theory has no justification in the early Vedic literature. In some cases it is obviously wrong; for example, the Sūta is said to be a caste of this kind, whereas it is perfectly clear that if the Sūtas did form a caste, it was one ultimately due to occupation. But there is no evidence at all that the Sūtas, Grāmaηīs, and other members of occupations were real castes in the sense that they were endogamic in the early Vedic period. All that we can say is that there was a steady progress by which caste after caste was formed, occupation being an important determining feature, just as in modern times there are castes bearing names like Gopāla (cowherd ’) Kaivarta or Dhīvara ('fisherman'), and Vaṇij (‘merchant’). Fick finds in the Jātakas mention of a number of occupations whose members did not form part of any caste at all, such as the attendants on the court, the actors and dancers who went from village to village, and the wild tribes that lived in the mountains, fishermen, hunters, and so on. In Vedic times these people presumably fell under the conception of śūdra, and may have included the Parṇaka, Paulkasa, Bainda, who are mentioned with many others in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā and the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa in the list of victims at the Puruṣamedha (‘human sacrifice’). The slaves also, whom Fick includes in the same category, were certainly included in the term śūdra. 5. Origin of the Castes.—The question of the origin of the castes presents some difficulty. The ultimate cause of the extreme rigidity of the caste system, as compared with the features of any other Aryan society, must probably be sought in the sharp distinction drawn from the beginning between the Aryan and the śūdra. The contrast which the Vedic Indians felt as existing between themselves and the conquered population, and which probably rested originally on the difference of colour between the upper and the lower classes, tended to accentuate the natural distinctions of birth, occupation, and locality which normally existed among the Aryan Indians, but which among other Aryan peoples never developed into a caste system like that of India. The doctrine of hypergamy which marks the practical working of the caste system, seems clearly to point to the feeling that the Aryan could marry the śūdrā, but not the śūdra the Aryā. This distinction probably lies at the back of all other divisions: its force may be illustrated by the peculiar state of feeling as to mixed marriages, for example, in the Southern States of America and in South Africa, or even in India itself, between the new invaders from Europe and the mingled population which now peoples the country. Marriages between persons of the white and the dark race are disapproved in principle, but varying degrees of condemnation attach to (1) the marriage of a man of the white race with a woman of the dark race; (2) an informal connexion between these two; (3) a marriage between a woman of the white race and a man of the dark race; and (4) an informal connexion between these two. Each category, on the whole, is subject to more severe reprobation than the preceding one. This race element, it would seem, is what has converted social divisions into castes. There appears, then, to be a large element of truth in the theory, best represented by Risley, which explains caste in the main as a matter of blood, and which holds that the higher the caste is, the greater is the proportion of Aryan blood. The chief rival theory is undoubtedly that of Senart, which places the greatest stress on the Aryan constitution of the family. According to Senart the Aryan people practised in affairs of marriage both a rule of exogamy, and one of endogamy. A man must marry a woman of equal birth, but not one of the same gens, according to Roman law as interpreted by Senart and Kovalevsky ; and an Athenian must marry an Athenian woman, but not one of the same γez/oç. In India these rules are reproduced in the form that one must not marry within the Gotra, but not without the caste. The theory, though attractively developed, is not convincing; the Latin and Greek parallels are not even probably accurate ; and in India the rule forbidding marriage within the Gotra is one which grows in strictness as the evidence grows later in date. On the other hand, it is not necessary to deny that the development of caste may have been helped by the family traditions of some gentes, or Gotras. The Patricians of Rome for a long time declined intermarriage with the plebeians; the Athenian Eupatridai seem to have kept their yevη pure from contamination by union with lower blood; and there may well have been noble families among the Vedic Indians who intermarried only among themselves. The Germans known to Tacitus163 were divided into nobiles and ingenui, and the Anglo-Saxons into eorls and ceorls, noble and non-noble freemen.1®4 The origin of nobility need not be sought in the Vedic period proper, for it may already have existed. It may have been due to the fact that the king, whom we must regard as originally elected by the people, was as king often in close relation with, or regarded as an incarnation of, the deity;165 and that hereditary kingship would tend to increase the tradition of especially sacred blood: thus the royal family and its offshoots would be anxious to maintain the purity of their blood. In India, beside the sanctity of the king, there was the sanctity of the priest. Here we have in the family exclusiveness of king and nobles, and the similar exclusiveness of a priesthood which was not celibate, influences that make for caste, especially when accompanying the deep opposition between the general folk and the servile aborigines. Caste, once created, naturally developed in different directions. Nesfield166 was inclined to see in occupation the one ground of caste. It is hardly necessary seriously to criticize this view considered as an ultimate explanation of caste, but it is perfectly certain that gilds of workers tend to become castes. The carpenters (Tak§an), the chariot-makers (Rathakāra), the fisher¬men (Dhaivara) and others are clearly of the type of caste, and the number extends itself as time goes on. But this is not to say that caste is founded on occupation pure and simple in its first origin, or that mere difference of occupation would have produced the system of caste without the interposition of the fundamental difference between Aryan and Dāsa or śūdra blood and colour. This difference rendered increasingly important what the history of the Aryan peoples shows us to be declining, the distinction between the noble and the non-noble freemen, a distinction not of course ultimate, but one which seems to have been developed in the Aryan people before the separation of its various.branches. It is well known that the Iranian polity presents a division of classes comparable in some respects with the Indian polity. The priests (Athravas) and warriors (Rathaesthas) are unmistakably parallel, and the two lower classes seem to correspond closely to the Pāli Gahapatis, and perhaps to the śūdras. But they are certainly not castes in the Indian sense of the word. There is no probability in the view of Senart or of Risley that the names of the old classes were later superimposed artificially on a system of castes that were different from them in origin. We cannot say that the castes existed before the classes, and that the classes were borrowed by India from Iran, as Risley maintains, ignoring the early Brāhmaṇa evidence for the four Varnas, and treating the transfer as late. Nor can we say with Senart that the castes and classes are of independent origin. If there had been no Varṇa, caste might never have arisen; both colour and class occupation are needed for a plausible account of the rise of caste.
viś Is an expression of somewhat doubtful significance. In many passages of the Rigveda the sense of ‘settlement’ or ‘dwelling’ is adequate and probable, since the root viś means to enter’ or ‘settle.’ In other passages, where the Viśaḥ stand in relation to a prince, the term must mean ‘subject’; so, for example, when the people of Tṛṇaskanda or of the Trtsus are mentioned. ' Again, in some passages the general sense of ‘ people ’ is adequate; as when the Rigveda speaks of the ‘Aryan people,’ or the ‘divine people,’ or the ‘ Dāsa people,’ and so on. Sometimes, however, the Viś appear in a more special sense as a subdivision of the Jana or whole people. This is, however, not common, for in most passages one or other of the senses given above is quite possible. Moreover, it is very difficult to decide whether the Viś as a subdivision of the Jana is to be considered as being a local subdivision (canton) or a blood kinship equivalent to a clan in the large sense of the word, while the relation of the Viś to the Grāma or to the Gotra is quite uncertain. In one passage of the Atharvaveda the Viśah are mentioned along with the sabandhavah or relatives, but no definite conclusion can be drawn from that fact. Nor does the analogy of the Roman curia or the Greek φpηrpη throw much light, as these institutions are themselves of obscure character, and the parallelism need not be cogent. It is, at any rate, possible that the Viś may in some cases have been no more than a Gotra or clan, or different clans may sometimes have made up a Viś, while Grāma is more definitely, perhaps, a local designation. But the Vedic evidence is quite inconclusive. Cf. Viśpati. In the later period the sense of Viś is definitely restricted in some cases to denote the third of the classes of the Vedic polity, the people or clansmen as opposed to the nobles (Kṣatra, Kṣatriya) and the priests (Brahman, Brāhmaṇa). For the position of this class, see Vaiśya.
saṃgrāma Denotes primarily, it seems, ‘assembly ’ either in peace or in war, when it means an ‘ armed band.’ Its normal sense in the Atharvaveda and later is ‘war,’ ‘battle.’ Little is known of Vedic warfare, but it seems to have been simple. A body of foot soldiers with charioteers composed every army, the two going together, and the foot soldiers being often overthrown by the charioteers, who were doubtless the Kṣatriyas and their foremost retainers. Probably the foot soldiers bore little armour, and used only the bow for offence, as is suggested by the account that Herodotus gives of the Indian contingent of the army with which Xerxes invaded Greece. The nobles, on the other hand, may have had cuirass (Varman), helmet (śiprā), and hand-guard (Hastaghna) as a protection from the friction of the bowstring. On the car was the charioteer, and on his left the warrior (Sārathi, Savya§thā). Riding is never mentioned in war, and would hardly have been suited to Vedic ideas, for the warrior mainly depended on his bow, which he could not have used effectively from horse¬back. The offensive weapon (Áyudha) was practically the bow; spear and sword and axe were very seldom used. Whether there was a strict tribal organization of the host, such as is once alluded to in the Homeric poems, and is also recognized in Germany by Tacitus, is uncertain (cf. Vrāta), but in the Epic relations (Jñāti) fight together, and this rule, no doubt, applied more or less in Vedic times also. Cities were besieged and invested (upa-sad, pra-bhid), probably as a rule by blockade, since the ineffective means of assault of the time would have rendered storming difficult and expensive. Hillebrandt thinks that the pur carisnū of the Rigveda was a kind of chariot; it may—like the Trojan horse—have been an Indian anticipation of the Roman means of assaulting a town. Besides ordinary wars of defence and conquest, raids into neighbouring territory seem to have been frequent and normal, no doubt because of the booty (Udāja, Nirāja) which wai to be won, and which the king had to share with the'people. Banners (Dhvaja) were borne in war, and musical instruments (Dundubhi, Bakura) were used by the combatants.
       Bloomfield Vedic
3 results
tiro romāṇy avyayā RV.9.62.8b. See tiro vārāṇy.
tiro vārāṇy avyayā # RV.9.67.4b; 107.10b; SV.1.513b; 2.330b,1039b. See tiro romāṇy.
yuvāyavo 'ti romāṇy avyayā # RV.1.135.6f.
     Dictionary of Sanskrit
     KV Abhyankar
"roman" has 5 results.
taddhitakośaa work on the taddhita section written by Siromani Bhattacarya, who has also written तिङन्तशिरोमणि.
śeṣakṛṣṇaone of the prominent grammarians belonging to the Sesa family, who was the son of नरससिंहशेत्र. He wrote a gloss on the Prakriyakaumudi and two small works Prakrtacandrika and Padacandrika. Two other minor grammar works viz. the Yanlugantasiromani and Upapadamatinsutravyakhyana are ascribed to शेषकृष्ण who may be the same as शेषकृष्ण the son of नरसिंह, or another, as there were many persons who had the name Krsna in the big family.
     DCS with thanks   
Results for roman16 results
roman noun (neuter) (esp.) short hair (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
bristles (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
down (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
nap (less properly applicable to the long hair on the head and beard of men) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
the feathers of a bird (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
the hair on the body of men and animals (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
the scales of a fish (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
wool (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 1402/72933
romantha noun (masculine) chewing (of betel) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
chewing the cud (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
frequent repetition (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
ruminating (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 63844/72933
aroman adjective hairless
Frequency rank 44882/72933
kapotaroman noun (masculine) name of a king (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 21019/72933
kāñcanaroman adjective having golden hair
Frequency rank 49046/72933
pṛthuroman noun (masculine) a fish (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 29080/72933
mahāroman noun (masculine) name of a king (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
name of the superior of a Buddhist monastery (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
name of Śiva
Frequency rank 22009/72933
vikīrṇaroman noun (neuter) a kind of plant
Frequency rank 65366/72933
śaṅkuroman noun (masculine) name of a ??
Frequency rank 67111/72933
śaṅkharoman noun (masculine) name of a serpent-demon (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 67129/72933
śaśaroman noun (masculine) name of a serpent which was burnt in Janamejayas sarpasattra
Frequency rank 67335/72933
stabdharoman noun (masculine) a wild boar
Frequency rank 41176/72933
svarṇaroman noun (masculine) name of a king (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 31219/72933
hiraṇyaroman noun (masculine) name of a Lokapāla (son of Marīci) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
name of a son of Parjanya (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
name of Bhishmaka (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
name of various ṣis (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 22776/72933
hemaroman noun (masculine) name of a man (?)
Frequency rank 72707/72933
hrasvaroman noun (masculine) name of a king of Videha (son of Svarṇaroman) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 31318/72933
Ayurvedic Medical
     Dr. Potturu with thanks
     Purchase Kindle edition


Plant wodier tree, Lannea coromandical, L. grandis.


Plant coromandal goosberry, Averrhoa carambola.


measles or rubeola (not to be confused with rubella).

     Wordnet Search "roman" has 14 results.



romanabhāṣāyāḥ aṅkaḥ।

eṣā saṅkhyā romanāṅkeṣu likhatu।


romanthaḥ, romantham   


gauḥ chāyāṃ sthitvā romanthaṃ karoti।



śṛṅgināṃ catuṣpādānāṃ nigalitasya khādyasya punaḥ hanucalanarūpaḥ carvaṇānukūlaḥ vyāpāraḥ।

gauḥ romanthāyate।



yaḥ sarveṣu kāryeṣu sarvottamaḥ asti।

rāmacandraḥ raghukulasya śiromaṇiḥ āsīt।



śirasi dhāryamāṇaṃ ratnam।

tasya śirasi śiromaṇiḥ śobhate।



śarīrajātāṅkuraḥ; bhayāt śyāmasya śarīre romāni jāyante।/

harṣādbhutabhayādibhyo romāñco romavikrayā [sā da 167]


caulam, cūḍāsaṃskāraḥ, śiromaṇḍanam, cūḍākaraṇam   

hindūnāṃ ṣoḍaśeṣu saṃskāreṣu ekaḥ yasmin bālakasya keśāḥ muṇḍyante।

saḥ vārāṇasīnagare svaputrasya caulam ācarat।


romaḥ, romanagaram   

iṭalīdeśasya rājadhānī।

yadā romaḥ prājvalat tadā nīro-mahodayaḥ veṇum avādayat।



rogaviśeṣaḥ- sparśajanyarogaḥ yasmin tvaci laghugaṇḍāḥ prādurbhavanti।

romāntikayā pīḍitānāṃ kṛte nirmalasthānam āvaśyakam।



bhāratasya jhārakhaṇḍaprāntasya ekaṃ nagaram।

bokāromaṇḍalam āyasasya udyogāya prasiddham।



bhāratadeśasya jhārakhaṇḍarājye vartamānaṃ maṇḍalam।

bokāromaṇḍalasya mukhyālayaḥ bokāronagare asti।


romanībhāṣā, jipsībhāṣā   

jipsijanānāṃ bhāṣā।

śyāmā romanībhāṣāṃ jānāti।



lekhakaviśeṣaḥ ।

śiromaṇibhaṭṭaḥ iti nāmakānāṃ naikeṣāṃ lekhakānām ullekhaḥ vivaraṇapustikāyām asti



lekhakanāmaviśeṣaḥ ।

śiromaṇibhaṭṭācāryaḥ iti nāmakānāṃ naikeṣāṃ lekhakānāṃ varṇanaṃ vivaraṇapustikāyām asti

Parse Time: 1.272s Search Word: roman Input Encoding: IAST: roman