S C R I P TA

A N I N T E R NAT I O NA L J O U R NA L O F C O D I C O LO G Y A N D PA L A E O G R A P H Y

Direttori Editors Mario Capasso Giancarlo Prato Comitato dOnore Honour Board Esin Atil Vasilis Atsalos Antonio Bravo-Garca Paul Canart Ernst Gamillscheg Francisco Gimeno Blay Dieter Harlfinger Louis Holtz Birger Munk Olsen Francis Newton Giovanna Nicolaj Colette Sirat Comitato scientifico Scientific Board Malachi Beit-Ari Carlo Carletti Angel Escobar Chico Pasquale Cordasco Marco DAgostino Luisa DArienzo Paola Davoli Paola Degni Giuseppe De Gregorio Flavia De Rubeis Axinia Dzurova Paolo Eleuteri Maria Rosa Formentin Christian Frstel David Ganz Clelia Gattagrisi Donald Jackson Walter Koch Judith Olszowy-Schlanger Giulia Orofino Paola Orsatti Mauro Perani Paolo Radiciotti Antonella Rovere Alain Touwaide Caterina Tristano Comitato editoriale Editorial Board Marco DAgostino (coordinatore) Laura Albiero Daniele Arnesano Maria Clara Cavalieri Corinna Drago Paolo Fioretti Natascia Pell Referees 2012-2013 Laura Albiero (Universit Paris-Sorbonne) Attilio Bartoli Langeli (Pontificia Universit Antonianum, Roma) Paul Canart (Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei) Carlo Carletti (Universit degli Studi Bari) Guglielmo Cavallo (Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei) Paola Degni (Universit degli Studi Bologna-Ravenna) Paolo Eleuteri (Universit degli Studi Venezia) Vera von Falkenhausen (Istituto Storico Germanico Roma) Paolo Fioretti (Universit degli Studi Bari) Maria Rosa Formentin (Universit degli Studi Trieste) Stefania Fortuna (Universit Politecnica delle Marche Ancona) Nicoletta Giov (Universit degli Studi Padova) Otto Kresten (sterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien) Marilena Maniaci (Universit degli Studi Cassino) Giuseppe Mandal (Centro de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales Madrid) Teresa Martnez Manzano (Universidad de Salamanca) Fausto Montana (Universit degli Studi Pavia-Cremona) Marco Palma (Universit degli Studi Cassino) Valentina Sagaria Rossi (Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei) Adele Tepedino (Universit degli Studi Salerno) Caterina Tristano (Universit degli Studi Siena) Dominik Wujastyk (Universitt Wien) Stefano Zamponi (Universit degli Studi Firenze) Scripta is an International Peer-Reviewed Journal. The eContent is Archived with Clockss and Portico. anvur: a

S C R I P TA
AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CODICOLOGY AND PALAEOGRAPHY

6 2013

PISA ROMA

Fabrizio Serra editore

MMXIII

Amministrazione e abbonamenti Fabrizio Serra editore Casella postale n. 1, succursale n. 8, i 56123 Pisa, tel. +39 050542332, fax +39 050574888, fse@libraweb.net I prezzi ufficiali di abbonamento cartaceo e/o Online sono consultabili presso il sito Internet della casa editrice www.libraweb.net. Print and/or Online official subscription prices are available at Publishers web-site www.libraweb.net. I pagamenti possono essere effettuati tramite versamento su c.c.p. n. 17154550 o tramite carta di credito (American Express, Visa, Eurocard, Mastercard) Uffici di Pisa: Via Santa Bibbiana 28, i 56127 Pisa, tel. +39 050542332, fax +39 050574888, fse@libraweb.net Uffici di Roma: Via Carlo Emanuele I 48, i 00185 Roma, tel. + 39 06 70493456, fax + 39 06 70476605, fse.roma@libraweb.net Autorizzazione del Tribunale di Pisa n. 21 del 14 giugno 2007 Direttore responsabile: Fabrizio Serra Sono rigorosamente vietati la riproduzione, la traduzione, ladattamento, anche parziale o per estratti, per qualsiasi uso e con qualsiasi mezzo effettuati, compresi la copia fotostatica, il microfilm, la memorizzazione elettronica, ecc., senza la preventiva autorizzazione scritta della Fabrizio Serra editore, Pisa Roma. Ogni abuso sar perseguito a norma di legge. Propriet riservata All rights reserved Copyright 2013 by Fabrizio Serra editore, Pisa Roma. Fabrizio Serra editore incorporates the Imprints Accademia editoriale, Edizioni dellAteneo, Fabrizio Serra editore, Giardini editori e stampatori in Pisa, Gruppo editoriale internazionale and Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali. Stampato in Italia Printed in Italy www.libraweb.net issn 1971-9027 issn elettronico 2035-2751

SOMMARIO
Serena Ammirati, The use of wooden tablets in the ancient Graeco-Roman world and the birth of the book in codex form: some remarks Daniele Bianconi, Pasquale Orsini, Libri e membra disiecta dal Prodromo di Petra. Giorgio Baioforo e il Vat. Pal. gr. 136 Mario Capasso, Libri greci e libri latini nella Villa Ercolanese dei Papiri: un rapporto problematico? Marco DAgostino, Furono prodotti manoscritti greci a Roma tra i secoli viii e ix ? Una verifica codicologica e paleografica Flavia De Rubeis, Modelli impaginativi delle iscrizioni funerarie elitarie tra longobardi e carolingi Arianna DOttone, A far eastern type of print technique for islamic amulets from the Mediterranean: an unpublished example Donatella Frioli, Un nuovo testimone altomedievale delle recognitiones pseudo-clementine: i frammenti reperiti a Trento Bruno Lo Turco, Propagation of written culture in Brahmanical India Luisa Miglio, Carlo Tedeschi, Echi romaneschi Natascia Pell, Libri scritture e scribi per i tre storici greci maggiori David Speranzi, Di Nicola, copista bessarioneo Indici Scripta 6 2013 9 17 35 41 57 67 75 85 95 115 121 139

PROPAGATION OF WRITTEN CULTURE IN BRAHMANICAL INDIA Bruno Lo Turco*

Abstract
In classical and especially medieval India books had a high circulation among cultured people. Nevertheless, Brahmanical culture regarded writing as a contemptible activity. In fact, a written text was understood as the defective realization of a perfect sonic essence. In the case of a revealed text, the written realization relied directly on the sonic essence. In the case of a text of human origin, the relation with the sonic essence was only indirect. In both cases that essence remained so crucial that the historical circumstances in which the text had been written down, and the fact itself that it was written down, were always thought of as insignificant. This ideology could have been developed by Brahmanism as a factor of self-identification in opposition to those flourishing cultures that assigned enormous significance to books. Keywords: Brahmanism, Sanskrit, aurality. Parole chiave: Brahmanesimo, Sanscrito, auralit.

Introduction

indu classic and medieval literature seldom refers to writing and reading, which were viewed as secondary, servile activities. Books were, at best, understood as merely subsidiary. What is more, in the Brahmanical sphere writing was often treated with distrust. It was considered suspicious, ambiguous, murky and impure.1 Still, in general it was not explicitly forbidden, with the notable exception of the Vedas. Bookish learning seemed to attest to the inferiority of those who had to rely on it. Ideally the male members of the three highest social classes had to approach religious doctrines through the oral tradition, namely the Vedas. Women and members of
* Istituto Italiano di Studi Orientali, Sapienza Universit di Roma, P.le Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Roma; bruno.loturco@uniroma1.it. 1 We will not describe the traditional Hindu wariness of reading and writing in detail, because this topic has already been masterfully analyzed in C. Malamoud, Noirceur de lecriture. Remarques sur un theme litteraire de lInde ancienne, in V. Alleton (ed.), Paroles a dire, paroles a crire. Inde, Chine, Japon, Paris 1997, pp. 85-114. The same paper appeared later in C. Malamoud, Le Jumeau Solaire, Paris 2002, pp. 127145. Cf. also L. Renou, Le destin du Vda dans lInde, Paris 1960 (tudes vdiques et paninennes, vi). 2 See, for instance, L. Rocher, The Puranas (A History of Indian Literature. Vol. 2, Epics and Sanskrit Religious Literature. Fasc. 3), Wiesbaden 1986, p. 16; B. K. Smith, Reflections on Resemblance, Ritual, and Religion, New York 1989, p. 25; S. Piano, La tradizione, la nuova rivelazione e la letteratura scientifica, in G. Boccali, S. Piano, S. Sani, Le letterature dellIndia. La civilt letteraria indiana dai Veda a oggi. Principi, metodologie, storia, Torino 2000, pp. 123-381: 219. 3 While originally the term grantha referred generically to a work, not necessarily something written, the term pustaka designated a manuscript. Significantly, the latter seems to be a loanword from a middle Iranian language. Cf. the Sogdian pwstk, book and the Persian post, skin (Old Persian pavasta), which allow us to reconstruct an Indo-Aryan form *postaka. See R. L. Turner, A

the labor class (udra), on the other hand, were allowed to approach this knowledge only through Puranas,2 which were typically considered and presented themselves as granthas or pustakas,3 that is, books.4 Sometimes the activity of writing, as an employment, was explicitly connected to an originally non-Aryan people, the tribe of the Ambasthas,5 later on assimilated as a rather low caste, the Kayasthas.6 In short, Brahmanical culture thought of writing as a rather despicable activity, in spite of the obvious fact that learning was held in the highest esteem. However, in classical and especially medieval India books had most probably a high diffusion among cultured people, beginning with Brahmans themselves.7 In the present article I intend to briefly inquire into this rift between the theoretical contempt for writing and the intensive use of it. There must have existed a ritual prohibition of writing the Vedas.8 An influential law treatise, the Vrddhagautamasmrti, points out that the sellers of the Vedas, offenders of the Vedas and writers of the Vedas indeed go to hell.9 So writing the Vedas was equivalent to a profanation. A solely oral transmission seems already implicitly prescribed in passages of the late Vedic tradition (Gopathabrahmana 1.1.37 k; 1.1.38 c), such as the Vedas are seized, swallowed, comprehended by Speech or the Vedas are founded on Speech.10 According to what al-Biruni stated in the 9th century, the Brahmans do not allow the Veda to be committed to writing, because it is recited according to certain modulations, and they therefore avoid the use of the pen, since it is liable to cause some error, and may occasion an addition or a defect
Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages, London 19621966, p. 478. 4 See, for instance, C. Mackenzie Brown, Purana as Scripture. From Sound to Image of the Holy Word in the Hindu Tradition, History of Religions 26/1 (1986), pp. 68-86: 70 ff. 5 To the same tribe is connected another impure from the orthodox standpoint activity, that of physician. 6 See R. Thapar, The Image of the Barbarian in Early India, Comparative Studies in Society and History 13/4 (1971), pp. 408-436: 429. 7 See, for instance, R. Torella, Congelare il sapere. Servit e grandezza del manoscritto indiano, in G. Boccali, M. Scarpari (edd.), Scritture e codici nelle culture dellAsia. Giappone, Cina, Tibet, India, Venezia 2006, pp. 245-256: 248 ff. 8 See Renou, tudes vdiques cit., p. 41 n. 1; Mackenzie Brown, Purana as Scripture cit., p. 69. 9 vedavikrayina caiva vedanam caiva dusakah|vedanam lekhina caiva te vai nirayagaminah|| Cit. in P. V. K a n e, History of Dharmaastra (Ancient and Medival Religious and Civil Law in India), Poona 19301962: 2.1, 349. The same stanza appears in Mahabharata 13.24.60; but there (at least in the usual Pune edition) the generic lekhin, one who scratches or writes, is replaced by the more technical lekhaka, scribe. 10 vaca veda abhipanna grasitah paramrstah| veda vaci pratisthitah| Ed. D. Gaastra, Das Gopatha Brahmana, Leiden 1919.

86

bruno lo turco leads us to assume the existence of a link between writing and puranic Hinduism, to which we shall return later. Naturally, the sort of ban that already affected writing from the end of the Vedic era6 could make sense only if writing existed and was spreading. An unknown or extremely uncommon activity would not have been banned. Books must have had a high circulation already in classical and medieval India,7 in spite of the fact that this was not admitted overtly. Clearly, Brahmans themselves were accustomed to using them. We have indirect evidence of this. Let us consider, for example, the extent of philosophical debate in Brahmanical circles: we cannot but conclude that the use of writing was fairly widespread, since an exact knowledge of the opponents positions is supposed to require an intensive use of books.8 No later than the 2nd-3rd century C.E. does the renowned law code Manusmrti (12.103) already seem to take a stand against the dangers of bibliophily, a vain accumulation of books: Those who possess books are better than those who ignore them; those who use them are better than those who possess them; those who understand them are better than those who use them; those who put them into practice are better than those who understand them.9 If nothing else, there is incontrovertible material evidence that in the two or three centuries that preceded the spread of printing manuscript culture was extraordinarily diffused. Still today, it is not unusual for a Brahmanical family to keep many hundreds of manuscripts at home, even if not necessarily in a good state of conservation.10 The ideological background Again, what was the reason for the aura of fear and suspicion concerning writing in Brahmanical culture? And how may one explain the vast diffusion of books among the same Brahmans who despised them? First of all, we have to take into account the orthodox ideological background. Beyond the practical problem of preserving texts accurately, these were learned by heart on the basis of a specific creed. Texts were considered to be made out of Speech, and this was understood as an ontological and cosmological principle. In short, knowledge was not regarded as a collection of pieces of information but as something made of Speech, which was intended in the
5 See V. Nath, From Brahmanism to Hinduism. Negotiating the Myth of the Great Tradition, Social Scientist 29/3-4 (2001), pp. 19-50: 19 ff. 6 See Malamoud, Le Jumeau Solaire cit., p. 142. 7 Ibid., p. 128. 8 See, for instance, Torella, Congelare il sapere cit., pp. 248 ff. 9 ajebhyo granthinah restha granthibhyo dharino varah|dharibhyo janinah restha janibhyo vyavasayinah||Ed. N a r a yan n a R ama A c a rya, Manusmrti with the Sanskrit Commentary Manvarthamuktavali of Kullukabhatta, Bombay 1946. In any case, the interpretation of the stanza given here is hardly the only possible one. 10 See D. Wujastyk, Indian Manuscripts, in J. Quenzer, J.-U. Sobisch (eds.), Manuscript Cultures. Mapping the Field, Berlin 2014, authors pre-publication, pre-edited draf, [http://univie.academia.edu/ DominikWujastyk/In-press] (accessed April 12, 2013).

in the written text.1 Al-Biruni added that in Hindu mythology itself this attitude which he as a Muslim must have regarded as quite odd is said to have brought about the oblivion of the Vedas on several occasions. Why this ban on writing? Winternitzs obvious suggestion should not be forgotten:
it was to the interest of the priests that the sacred texts which they taught in their schools, should not be committed to writing. By this means they kept a very lucrative monopoly firmly in their hands. He who wished to learn something, had to come to them and reward them richly.2

Later on the prohibition of writing the Vedas lost its strength, especially when commenting on the Vedic text started to gain a footing, no earlier than the second half of the first millennium C.E.3 Obviously a commentary required the text commented on to be written down. Nonetheless the written Vedic text never got near the status of holy scripture. It remained a mere instrument. However, in Brahmanical India it was actually believed that a work committed to memory was preserved more accurately than a work handed down by means of manuscripts. Such a belief was probably no exaggeration, since the mnemonic techniques used by the Brahman experts in the Vedas were extremely sophisticated.4 That being said, one cannot help noticing that in fact Hindu socio-religious practice and knowledge, for what it is worth conformed to the less authoritative tradition known as smrti (literally recollection), which was based on books, not to the more authoritative but little-known revelation ruti (literally hearing), which was perceived as a typically oral tradition. ruti coincides with the Vedas, while smrti includes law treatises (dharmaastra), the epics (itihasa) and Puranas, all of which are typically understood as books. In fact, while both were grouped under the category smrti and were considered to be of human origin, law treatises and Puranas seem to be separated by an ideological gap. While the former appear more conservative and closer to ruti and orthodox Brahmanism, the latter are much more favorably disposed towards lower social classes and tribes, ratifying devotional cults and folk usages.5 Moreover, the former are more wary of writing, the latter much more inclined to praise books (namely themselves). This elementary observation
1 E. C. Sachau, Alberunis India. An Account of the Religion, Philosophy, Literature, Geography, Chronology, Astronomy, Customs, Laws and Astrology of India about A.D. 1030, London 1888, reprint New Delhi 2002, p. 110. 2 M. Winternitz, A History of Indian literature. Vol. i, Introduction,Veda, National Epics, Puranas and Tantras, Calcutta 1962-1963, p. 35. 3 It is believed that the first commentary (Bhasya) on the Rgvedasamhita, the core of the Vedic tradition, is that of Skandasvamin; see Ram Gopal, The History and Principles of Vedic Interpretation, New Delhi 1983, p. 94. Unfortunately, Skandasvamins dates are far from being determined; see E. Kahrs, Indian Semantic Analysis. The Nirvacana Tradition, Cambridge 1998, p. 17. 4 See, for instance, C. Malamoud, Par coeur. Note sur le jeu de lamour et de la mmoire dans la posie de lInde ancienne, Traverses 40 (1987) (Thtres de la mmoire), pp. 183-190.

propagation of written culture in brahmanical india first place as sound. Moreover, Brahmanical literature was chiefly in Sanskrit. And in Brahmanical ideology, the divine peculiarities of the Vedas were gradually transferred to Sanskrit. At the end of this process, Sanskrit was considered perennial and transcendent like the Vedas, understood as the first embodiment of Speech itself.1 Therefore a Sanskrit text was a manifestation of Speech, which was regarded as an ultramundane, timeless principle. That is why a text was considered to be truly known only if learned by heart. It was exclusively in this way that it would show its authentic timeless nature, by being entirely present in the mind. Since the real essence of a text was seen as eternal, the historical circumstances in which the text had been composed were usually considered of no importance whatsoever.2 The emphasis on learning texts by heart tended to bring about their dehistoricization, which implied neglecting also the events connected to the written transmission. No more than one smrti text records the circumstances in which it was first written down, namely the Mahabharata. But even in this case, beyond the fact that the account is purely mythical, the renowned but late frame story of the work clearly shows the typical Hindu attitude towards books: the text written down by Ganea is but the mere transcription of an already existing oral composition by Vyasa.3 In reality, manuscripts did not play a secondary role on a practical level. They obviously worked as very handy, sometimes indispensable, supports for memorization. Nevertheless, a mere textual memorization, which of course could turn out to be rather laborious in the not infrequent case of unwieldy texts, was not enough. If a text was characterized by some religious or philosophical relevance, the pupil had to learn to reproduce accurately the teachers cantillation, that is, the exact sounds, including accentuation, pitch and rhythm. The process of learning still follows this same pattern in todays southern Brahmanical schools. The only difference is that of course teacher and pupils now use printed books.4 As it seems, the technological innovation of printing did not lead to any ideological change. It goes without saying that if there were no teacher, there would be no text or, at least, the text would be confined to an unattainable transcendent dimension. Therefore, as in the case of a painting the preparatory sketch is a tool and not the picture in itself, so the written text is a tool and not the text in itself. In other words, the semantic dimension, even if not necessarily neglected, is not the fundamental one. The primary nature of the text is its
1 See in particular A. Aklujkar, The Early History of Sanskrit as Supreme Language, in J. E. M. Houben (ed.), Ideology and Status of Sanskrit. Contribuitions to the History of Sanskrit Language, Leiden 1996, pp. 59-85. 2 See Malamoud, Par cur cit. 3 See, for instance, Mackenzie Brown, Purana as Scripture cit., p.76. 4 See, for instance, C. J. Fuller, Literacy and Memorization. Priestly Education in Contemporary South India, Modern Asian Studies 35/1 (2001), pp. 1-31: 3, 18, 23, 27 ff.

87

own sonic essence. Consequently, once a certain text is properly memorized, the book becomes useless. At this point, it might even been destroyed.5 While strictly speaking a supposed sonic essence characterizes only Vedic texts, namely texts that are considered to be revealed, in reality this explanatory structure concerns every authoritative text, of which the Vedas implicitly but inevitably are considered to be the archetype or source. Every authority springs from the Vedas, according to the claim of the Manusmrti (2.7): Any duty Manu [a mythical lawgiver] has proclaimed for anyone is already entirely stated in the Veda, since this consists of all knowledge.6 Even a Brahman is seen as authoritative only if he is endowed with Vedic knowledge, as the Manusmrti makes clear again and again. If a work is thought to exist mostly as a written text, such as a Purana one to which no status of a fifth Veda or the like is attributed , then it is not even seen as a text, but as something less, like an outline, a map, or a compilation of hints. But even in this case, the written text is considered a secondary manifestation of a true text, for example a vulgarization of the Vedas, with the only difference that it is twice removed from an authentic sonic essence. It is the mirror image of a mirror image or rather, as Plato would say, the copy of a copy. It is doubly inauthentic. While a Purana generally has a lot to say about the lineage of bards (suta) who allegedly handed it down by word of mouth, no Purana has anything to say about the circumstances in which it was first written down,7 as already mentioned. Again, these are viewed as a totally negligible detail. The higher the status of a text, the more the sheer sound comes to the fore, and the semantic dimension shifts towards the background. For example, if a Purana is more or less gradually assimilated to a Veda, thanks to its supporters propaganda, it acquires a mantric quality, as has been aptly argued,8 while previously it was understood as a mere auxiliary clarification of the Vedic mantras, if anything. The fact that writing in India was regarded by Brahmans as a purely ancillary activity proved to be a hindrance to the development of both calligraphic art and illustration art. Since no value was attributed to manuscripts apart from their practical use as supports for memory, the written line was not treated as decorative matter, nor were the characters artistically elaborated. At least in the Brahmanical sphere, there was not much reflection on the symbolism that could have been associated with the shape of the letters.9 Such a reflection appears much more frequently outside Brahmanical orthodoxy, for example within
5 Cf. T. B. Coburn, Scripture in India. Towards a Typology of the Word in Hindu Life, Journal of the American Academy of Religion 52/3 (1984), pp. 435-459: 444. 6 yah ka cit kasya cid dharmo manuna parikirtitah|sa sarvo bhihito vede sarvajanamayo hi sah|| 7 See, for instance, V. Narayana Rao, Purana, in S. Mittal-G. R. Thursby (eds.), The Hindu World, New York 2004, pp. 97-118. 8 Mackenzie Brown, Purana as Scripture cit., p. 74. 9 See Malamoud, Le Jumeau Solaire cit., p. 143.

88

bruno lo turco employment. The Brahmanical position probably involved an implicit criticism of ideologies that bestowed some sort of authority or sacredness to books, which of course would have weakened Brahmanical prestige. A rotriya Brahman was basically a source of sacred authority and religious ratification. In the presence of holy scriptures, Brahmans, especially rotriyas, would have turned out to be nearly useless. When the most influential law code of the Hindu tradition, the Manusmrti (12.108), intends to present its central principle (rahasya, literally secret doctrine), it states that if someone asks what to do with regard to laws that have not been handed down [authoritatively], the answer is that what the learned Brahmans say must be undisputed law.2 Furthermore (12.113), the law established by even a single Brahman who knows the Veda must be regarded as supreme, not that proclaimed by thousands of ignorant beings.3 In other words, a Brahman thought of himself as an indispensable intermediary between the transcendent world and this one. Looking at the question from a Brahmanical point of view, that role could never have been played by an inanimate object such as a book. The dualism between king and Brahman Turning our eye to the relationship between king and Brahman, we have been reminded by Heesterman of how the kings role was seen as totally worldly.4 As a matter of fact, the sovereign made use of violence, abuse and deceit. In short, his everyday activity was largely impure. Therefore his function was antithetical to Brahmanical purity, which was the most immediate manifestation of a transcendent reality. The mundane royal dharma was the exact opposite of the ultramundane Brahmanical dharma. In other words, kingship and priesthood, power and status, were completely distinct. The Hindu kingship was devoid of any priestly function.5 Consequently, to complement his power with authority, the sovereign had to associate with the Brahman, for otherwise royal power would have been a mere display of brute force. Only the Brahman was considered to be in direct contact with transcendence, the sole source of incontestable authority. The king needed the Brahman in order to be ritually legitimized and enter the religious sphere.6 On the other hand, the Brahman also needed the king, since Brahmanical culture could not survive without the kings financial support, his estate donations etc. Without the kings funding, Brahmans could not preserve their purity, because they would have been involved in worldly activities in order to make a living. In other words, the priestly class need-

the Tantric movement. In this sphere we have the mantranyasa, the imposition of graphemes upon various parts of the initiates body.1 However, illustration flourished mostly thanks to contact with Buddhism, Jainism and Islam. Furthermore, after the de facto adoption of a single language of culture, that is, Sanskrit, a lack of reflection on writing probably prevented India from adopting a unified alphabet. The material characteristics of manuscripts tended not to vary in the regions where written culture spread. Variations were imposed only by the materials available in a certain area. The scripts themselves, on the other hand, proved much more changeable. Now, the ideological basis of the primacy of sound is probably not enough to explain why Brahmanical circles grew wary of writing. Writing did not make sound useless. One could not benefit from writing apart from sound, because silent reading was almost certainly not known. In an aural culture such as that of classical India, halfway between the world of orality and our present civilization of writing, sound was still essential. It is well-known that even in the West, which became familiar with writing technology much earlier, the first meager testimony on the existence of silent reading goes back only to the 4th century C.E. This, again, is not enough. Brahmans could still have chosen to become the specialists in writing, but this responsibility fell to a much lower caste, the Kayasthas, at least according to the official version. If Brahmans had become professional scribes, this choice would have allowed them to better control the propagation of writing. All in all, even Plato himself adopted a position against writing, which could have reflected a common view of his time. But in spite of Platos enormous prestige the resistance to writing died out very soon in Greece Plato himself proved to be a graphomaniac. The same could have happened in India: the Brahmanical opposition to books could have dissolved much earlier. On the contrary, the most orthodox Brahmanical circles continued to be distrustful of writing, as far as we know. Beyond the above-mentioned ideological basis, three sociohistorical factors probably also came into play: 1. the typical dualism between king and Brahman, 2. the significance attributed to sacred books or even books in general by other religions present on Indian soil, like Buddhism or Islam, 3. the rivalry between traditionalist Brahmans expert in the Vedas (rotriyas) and panditas versed in puranic literature (pauranikas). In any case, the Brahmanical view on books did not significantly lessen the diffusion of writing because it was mostly concerned with a possible ideological background of this technology, not with its practical
1 Ibid., p. 144. Cf. also Mackenzie Brown, Purana as Scripture cit., p. 83 n. 62; Torella, Congelare il sapere cit., p. 253. 2 anamnatesu dharmesu katham syad iti ced bhavet|yam ista brahmana bruyuh sa dharmah syad aankitah|| 3 eko pi vedavid dharmam yam vyavasyed dvijottamah|sa vijeyah paro dharmo najanam udito yutaih||

4 J. C. Heesterman, The Inner Conflict of Tradition. Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society, Chicago 1985, pp. 7 ff. 5 See L. Dumont, Homo hierarchicus. Le systme de castes et ses implications, Paris 1966, p. 164. 6 See Heesterman, The Inner Conflict cit., pp. 6 ff.

propagation of written culture in brahmanical india ed the military class, to which king and court mostly belonged, in order to safeguard what counted most, the Brahmanical hierarchy, which was guaranteed by the conservation of purity.1 According to the Manusmrti (9.322): The military class does not prosper without the priestly class; the priestly class does not thrive without the military class. United, the priestly and the military classes thrive in this and the other world.2 Nevertheless, as Heesterman has pointed out, although the connection between the kings power and the brahmins authority is indeed required, the exclusivism of the Veda and the brahmins purity forbid him to enter into this relationship with the king.3 The ideal Brahman was no different from a renouncer (samnyasin). Consequently, he had not to be involved in the conventional world (samsara). Unfortunately, his inseparable counterpart, the king, even if seen as an earthly manifestation of a god, was irremediably involved in the conventional world, exactly in the way the gods themselves are. Therefore, ideally the Brahman was obliged not to maintain any relation with the king, who was a receptacle of impurity, since he had to exert violence in order to enforce the law. The Manusmrti (4.86) is quite explicit on this point: It is traditionally said that a king is equal to a butcher who runs ten thousand slaughterhouses; to accept his gifts is dreadful.4 So the Brahman and the king were opposite but complementary. Their association was paradoxical and indissoluble at the same time. Now, according to Malamoud, royal power and writing were closely related.5 This is shown, among other things, by the fact that in puranic literature there existed a god-scribe, Citragupta, described as the secretary of the god of death, Yama. In order to judge the dead, Yama makes use of his secretarys register. Citragupta supposedly means the one who judges the variety (of mens deeds). Therefore, in the divine world writing is used for recording mens deeds. The verdict and the sentence to a certain punishment among the many possible penalties derive from what is written in the register. The royal scepter was seen as analogous to the scribal calamus. An earthly king inflicting a punishment was but a repetition of the divine model of Yama. Furthermore, the king was the head of state administration and consequently symbolized creditors power, which is, again, attested by documents.6 In short, the king made himself responsible for activities that were indispensable but impure. Some of these were indissolubly connected to writing. While royal power was associated with books, Brahmanical authority was connected with Speech, since it springs from the Vedas, which are essentially Speech. Now, exactly because royal ac-

89

tivities were impure and nevertheless allowed his survival, the Brahman felt the need to emphasize his alleged non-involvement in them. Brahmans probably tended to reject writing as a way of stressing the difference and superiority of status within an otherwise inevitable relationship. All in all, the status of oral transmission was superior to that of writing exactly in the same way in which the Brahmans status was superior to the kings. The reason why writing, when associated with royal duties government, administration, law enforcement , was often anything but discredited7 thus becomes clearer. In this case we are dealing with an impure instrument, namely writing, which allowed the king to carry out an impure activity, namely ruling. To blame the instrument would not have made any sense, because the impurity of the activity already implies that of its instruments, which is only secondary and derivative. It would have been the equivalent of blaming the royal executioners for killing. To come back to the difference of status between writing and orality, as the kings power had to be based on the Brahmans authority, so the written tradition (smrti) had to be based on the revelation (ruti), which is oral by definition. The Manusmrti (12.94cd) maintains that it is established that the doctrine of the Veda is insurmountable and unfathomable.8 Consequently, just as the king manifested as much as possible the transcendental order of dharma in the real world, thereby incurring an inevitable impurity, so the written tradition made comprehensible in the real world the otherwise inaccessible Vedic knowledge. Furthermore, just as the Brahman had ideally not to enter into a relationship with the king, but as a matter of fact did, so a revered work had ideally not to be written down, but in effect was. The Brahman condemned those who made use of writing, but he employed it himself. As is often the case, new technologies impose themselves even on those who distrust them. Writing became practically indispensable in order to pass on texts, even if Brahmans pretended that between the written text and the oral work there was no necessary relation, but only an occasional one. In the same way the sovereign was indispensable to Brahmans, even if they would have preferred not to have any relationship with him. Then, of course, the king encouraged literature. Art literature (kavya) flourished, at least initially, in royal courts, especially in order to praise the king. Moreover, the sovereign supported the compiling of Puranas, since these works had laudatory sections as well.9 As a matter of fact, and in spite of the Brahmans preoccupations, the genealogical section of Puranas were an important part of the exchange be-

1 Cf. Dumont, Homo hierarchicus cit., p. 97. 2 nabrahma ksatram rdhnoti naksatram brahma vardhate|brahma ksatram ca samprktam iha camutra vardhate|| 3 Heesterman, The Inner Conflict cit., p. 189. 4 daa sunasahasrani yo vahayati saunikah|tena tulyah smrto raja ghoras tasya pratigrahah||

5 6 7 8 9

Malamoud, Le Jumeau Solaire cit., pp. 137 ff. Ibid., p. 142. See Torella, Congelare il sapere cit., p. 251. aakyam caprameyam ca vedaastram iti sthitih|| See, for instance, Piano, La tradizione cit. p. 231.

90

bruno lo turco Therefore, Brahmans might have felt the need to distance themselves from the Buddhists and the Jains by showing off a contempt for writing. Things nevertheless became complicated soon. Probably Brahmanism was gradually compelled to make use of writing: otherwise it could not have competed with Buddhism and Jainism. Originally, even Buddhists and Jains seemed to be wary of writing.7 This is understandable: new technologies are always feared by a majority of people. The success of writing did not bring about the disappearance of oral transmission, which continued and was venerated for centuries. Nevertheless, contrary to Brahmanism, Buddhism and Jainism were characterized by proselytism. Monks were encouraged to travel. The third council of the Buddhist sangha, which was held in Pataliputra under the emperor Aoka around the middle of the 3rd century B.C., decided to send missionaries not only to the whole sub-continent but also beyond it. Later on it probably became increasingly clear that Buddhism could have spread to peripheral areas especially through books. Only a few monks could reach such areas, because travelling was tiring and dangerous, the world vast, and the learned monks not numberless. But books allowed even a few monks to bring the whole doctrine, or a good part of it, to peripheral areas. A handful of monks could not remember the whole doctrine, but in their stead books could recollect it. The production of manuscripts began around the 1st century B.C. The Mahayana sutras went as far as presenting the copying and worship of these sutras themselves as an unlimited source of religious merit. That being said, the significance of the Jain manuscript tradition cannot be overestimated.8 As already mentioned, the Jains developed an unequalled network of libraries. They adopted paper precociously, beginning from the 12th century,9 and ended up developing a rare, in the Indian context, calligraphic art10 as well as an original miniature style.11 A further Brahmanical resistance to writing could have been due to the importance attributed to the Quran by the Muslim conquerors. That Brahmans differed from Muslims on the issue of the holy scriptures seems implicitly affirmed by a twelfth-century Muslim author, al-Shahrastani, in the Kitab al-Milal wa al-Nihal, in which one chapter, Ara|ahl al-Hind, deals with the Indian religions. Al-Shahrastani specifies on several occasions that Brahmans (Barahima) reject prophecies. This could be an allusion to the Brahmans suspicion of books, since the attestation of
6 See, for instance, Wujastyk, Indian Manuscripts cit.; P. Dundas, The Jains, 2nd ed., New York 2002, pp. 83 ff. 7 See Veidlinger, When a Word Is Worth a Thousand Pictures cit., pp. 412 ff.; Dundas, The Jains cit., p. 72. 8 See N. Balbir, Is a Manuscript an Object or a Living Being? Jain Views on the Life and Use of Sacred Texts, in K. Myrvold (ed.), The Death of Sacred Texts. Ritual Disposal and Renovation of Texts in World Religions, Farnham 2010, pp. 107-124: 107. 9 See Wujastyk, Indian Manuscripts cit. 10 See, for instance, Balbir, Is a Manuscript an Object cit., p. 114. 11 See, for instance, A. Ghose, The Development of Jaina Painting, Artibus Asiae 2/3 (1927), pp. 187-202: 194 ff.

tween king and Brahmans. If the king granted the Brahmans land,1 often in virgin areas, the Brahmans attested the antiquity of his genealogy through the proper section of a Purana. The more the actual royal genealogy was uncertain or, what is worse, of suspected barbaric origin a frequent case in Indian history , the more the king needed this priestly attestation.2 So writing was a relevant element of the interchange between royal power and spiritual authority. This was all the more reason for the Brahmans to pretend not to attach any importance to writing. Buddhism, Jainism and Islam The Mahayana Buddhist attitude towards writing seems quite different from the Brahmanical one. According to some scholars, Buddhists developed entire socio-religious systems around the production and use of manuscripts, which were understood as icons with a ritual significance. There probably existed a cult of manuscripts analogous to that of relics. Maybe the two cults were even in competition with each other.3 Contrary to what happened in the Brahmanical world, here sacred knowledge was depicted, also iconographically, as based on books.4 Manuscripts, as material items, were parts of a system of sacred objects together with the sculptures and architectural works in which the manuscripts were kept and utilized. Ideas about and from the texts inspired Buddhist artists works. Buddhist manuscripts had at least two different values: on the one hand they were sources of philosophic-religious knowledge, on the other they were worshipped as sacred objects, being viewed as tangible manifestations of dharma. Manuscripts were worshipped on altars. They were installed in icons of Buddhas or inside stupas. Archeological and iconographical evidence, as well as the accounts of Chinese pilgrims, prove that stupas intended specifically for texts were erected, and that these were objects of cult.5 Moreover, Buddhists, as well as Jains, built monastic libraries. Especially Jain libraries also kept manuscripts belonging to other traditions and religions.6 This can be explained on the basis of the fact that the Jain philosophical thought took a marked syncretistic position. The Jains collected all doctrines, interpreting them as partial truths, namely truths within the limited ambit of a specific standpoint. Such intellectual enterprise of course stimulated intensive use of the technology of writing and preservation of manuscripts.
1 See, for instance, B. Caldwell, The Jajmani System. An Investigation, Delhi 1991, p. 59; Nath, From Brahmanism to Hinduism cit., pp. 23 ff. 2 Cf. Thapar, The Image of the Barbarian cit., p. 428. 3 See S. C. Berkwitz et al., Introduction. Rethinking Buddhist Manuscript Cultures, in Buddhist Manuscript Multures. Knowledge, Ritual and Art, London 2009, pp. 1-15: 3. 4 See D. Veidlinger, When a Word Is Worth a Thousand Pictures. Mahayana Influence on Theravada Attitudes towards Writing, Numen 53/4 (2006), pp. 405-447: 409. 5 Ibid., p. 411; see also Berkwitz et al., Introduction cit., pp. 5 ff.

propagation of written culture in brahmanical india Muhammads prophethood is precisely a book, the Quran. The fact that it had actually been revealed verbally may easily have been overshadowed or even made things worse in the Brahmans opinion since it had been turned into a book later on. Unfortunately, al-Shahrastani mentions books explicitly only when dealing with the Indian followers of the Spiritual Beings (malak ruhani), who manifest themselves in human form. It stands to reason that this refers to the doctrine of avataras. According to al-Shahrastanis description, these beings perform miracles and enunciate commandments and laws. In other words, they are similar to prophets. But it is added that they do not bring a written testimony.1 Again, this might be a reference to the Brahmanical rejection of scriptural authority. Exponents of the two religions might have debated the question.2 Undoubtedly a Brahmanical identity long predates the appearance of Islam in India. Brahmans have been committed to a constant building and strengthening of the Brahmanical identity through the centuries.3 Still, the contempt for writing could have been part of this process. After all, Mahayana Buddhists and Muslims had a special link to holy scriptures, each in their specific way. By contrast, Brahmans could have felt implicitly honored by not having holy scriptures. Islam entered India quite early, at the beginning of the 8th century. The roughest period of clashes was from the 11th to the 13th century. Nevertheless, the Brahmanical tradition did not make a clear distinction among all those who did not accept the social hierarchy based on the preservation of purity. According to this view, Muslims were not so far removed from Buddhists. In medieval India some groups of Muslim conquerors could be called Yavana, that is, Greeks. And Buddhism thrived under the IndoGreeks. Muslims could also be called aka (IndoScythians), like the people who entered northwest India in the 2nd century C.E. and were converted to Buddhism.4 Furthermore, both Buddhists and Muslims were upholders of a kind of suzerainty characterized by all-inclusiveness, in which power is not separate from authority. In the Hindu tradition, on the other hand, royal temporal power is clearly distinct from the Brahmanical spiritual authority.5 Unfortunately, the Brahmanical tradition tends not to describe Muslims or other groups of barbarians (mleccha) in detail. Thus it is difficult to ascertain if Brahmans also criticized specific customs, such as revering a holy scripture, apart from not applying the Brahmanical social order. Of course, Brahmans could not portray the enemies of Brahmanical social order in detail, since this would have meant mixing with them or, at least, observing them closely. A Brahman
1 See B. B. Lawrence, Shahrastani on the Indian Religions, The Hague 1976, p. 147; M. S. Khan, A Twelth Century Arab Account of Indian Religions and Sects, Arabica 30/2 (1983), pp. 199-208: 206. 2 Cf. Lawrence, Shahrastani cit., p. 75. 3 Cf. C. Talbot, Inscribing the Other, Inscribing the Self. Hindu-Muslim Identities in Pre-Colonial India, Comparative Studies in Society and History 37/4 (1995), pp. 692-722: 699.

91

could not do this without contracting a certain amount of impurity. In any case he would not have admitted to doing it.6 The aural culture of paur a n ika s Now, Puranas represented the instruments by means of which Brahmanical culture tried to keep up with the proselytism of other cultures, first the Buddhist and the Jain, then the Islamic. As is well-known, these instruments were part of a strategy that turned out to be extremely successful. But orthodox Brahmanism probably remained wary of books, including Puranas, even if these claimed to be consistent with Vedic doctrine. In the first place, this consistency was anything but evident. Additionally, the kind of competence required to master the puranic material was somewhat different from that required to master the Vedic tradition. This could not but look suspicious to conservative Brahmans, who also ran the risk of being left out in fact, puranic culture gradually prevailed and ended up shaping Hinduism as we know it. The orthodox Brahmans culture tended to be oral, while the pauranika, the expert in Puranas, was characterized by aural skills. He was a public performer, because he periodically read sections of a Purana and commented on them publicly.7 At the same time, he made use of a mass of written material, from which he took his readings and which was the source of his erudition, together with the customary oral sources. He could also edit some parts of the written material8 in order to make it more engrossing to his sponsor and audience. The rotriya Brahman, on the other hand, was very far from being a public performer, did not particularly appreciate writing and was of course not supposed to edit his materials. Obviously, it is difficult to decide whether conservative Brahmans were wary of writing because pauranikas used it or were wary of pauranikas because they used writing. In any case rotriya Brahmans prestige was such that pauranikas never felt the need to emphasize the specificity of their aural skills. Pauranikas could but strive to resemble rotriya Brahmans, who represented the paradigm of all kinds of Brahmans. All in all, smrti was understood as a derivative of ruti. Therefore the rotriya overshadowed the pauranika, even if in reality the latter was much more integrated in the social fabric and an effective source of innovation. Brahmanism initially conceived of itself as practicable only in a restricted area of the northwest of India, the abode of the nobles (aryavarta). This exclusivism became unsustainable and gradually faded, as the historical and socio-cultural conditions changed and Buddhism flourished. Having few patrons in roy4 5 6 7 8 Ibid. See Heesterman, The Inner Conflict cit., pp. 141 ff. Cf. Thapar, The Image of the Barbarian cit., p. 436. See, for instance, Piano, La tradizione cit. p. 232. See, for instance, Narayana Rao, Purana cit.

92

bruno lo turco sacrificial rite in the [past] bronze age; in the [present] iron age it is only giving.8 According to the Agnipurana (63.019ab), If one gives a book to a Brahman, there is no limit to the reward.9 Furthermore, the gifts to Brahmans have the power to dissolve the donors sins. A stanza of the Brahmapurana (175.90) asserts that such gifts guarantee nothing less than liberation: Having written the book, one offers this to a Brahman [according to the custom]; [the giver], freed from all sins, will not enter a womb again.10 However, even if it is only the often self-referential Puranas that are explicit about making a donation of themselves, there is no reason to think that different kinds of books, such as philosophical treatises, could not be appreciated by Brahmans as well. What could facilitate the circulations of books was the particular kind of traditional economy. This was based on a complex set of privileges, assets and services, more or less connected to the caste hierarchy, that stretched far beyond the single village.11 The fact that the members of each Brahmanical sub-caste had to be served for their ritual necessities by priests of a higher Brahmanical sub-caste arouses particular interest. In each village the highest local sub-caste had to call in priests from outside in order to find Brahmans of a higher caste.12 Some Brahmans, namely members of the most cultivated class of Hindu society, therefore had to travel often, and this could have allowed a rapid and widespread propagation of literate culture and books. As already mentioned, Puranas were recited at public readings by a pandita known as pauranika. Listening to these readings was regarded as a source of huge religious merit. For example, a stanza from the Brahmapurana (175.89cd) runs as follows: By the mere listening to this [work], a man will be one whose duties are accomplished [once and for all].13 A fundamental aspect in the diffusion strategy of books was self-exaltation. A Purana typically does not present itself as a book, but as the book. For example, the Agnipurana (382.47cd-51ab) affirms about itself: There is no greater essence, friend, book, path, treatise, revelation, knowledge, tradition, scripture, science, established doctrine, benediction, completion of the Vedas, Purana than this; on earth there is no greater treasure than this.14 According to the Padmapurana (7.26.54), A human being who honors
8 dvapare yajam evahur danam ekam kalau yuge|| 9 dvijaya pustakam datva phalasyanto na vidyate| Ed. R. Mitra, Agnipurana, Calcutta 1870-1879. See also 211.059 ff. 10 likhitva pustakam idam brahmanaya prayacchati|sarvapapavinirmuktah punar garbham na samviet|| eds. P. Schreiner-R. Shnen, Brahmapurana (Tbingen Purana Project Version), Tbingen 1982-1988 (e-text). 11 See, for instance, Heesterman, The Inner Conflict cit., pp. 183 ff. 12 See, for instance, W. H. Wiser, The Hindu Jajmani System, Lucknow 1936, reprint 3rd ed., New Delhi 1988, p. 3. 13 etacchravanamatrena krtakrtyo bhaven narah|| 14 nasmat paratarah saro suhrt|| grantho gatih| astra m rutih|| j anam smrtih| a gamo vidya || siddhanto paramamangalam| vedantah puranam ||nasmat parataram bhumau vidyate vastu durlabham|

al courts and among the social classes that dominated the urban world, who espoused Buddhism or other heterodox doctrines, Brahmans had to turn to lower classes and tribes around the 2nd century B.C. Including in their range of action rural areas and peripheral regions, they started a process of systematic incorporation of local cults and beliefs into Brahmanism. This development was at its height around the 5th century C.E.1 The integration was managed also through books, the Puranas. Only books allowed the mastering of the infinite local cults and beliefs, as well as their validation and amalgamation into Brahmanism. And at the same time books allowed the remembrance and preservation of some pivotal characteristics of Brahmanical tradition in the remote areas whose cultivable lands were often donated to Brahmans by sovereigns.2 It is well-known that Brahmans acted as missionaries of official culture in these distant regions,3 probably in the wake of the Buddhist model. And only books could allow Brahmanism to compete with Buddhism, which in the meantime had developed the Mahayanic cult of books. We can presume that an ideological gap between rotriya and pauranika Brahmans must have developed over the centuries. This must have derived at least in part from the division between sedentary Brahmans and Brahmanical missionaries.4 Puranas were the migrant Brahmans work tool. Puranas, then, might have represented the Trojan horse through which writing ended up being generally accepted by Hindu culture later on, from the 10th century C.E.5 The diffusion of puranic literature is implicitly explained by the Puranas themselves in terms of vidyadana, the gift of knowledge.6 It is not surprising that the Puranas, which are unlike the Vedas known as books, speak in favor of the diffusion of books. Still, this attitude did not necessarily reflect the beliefs of all Brahmanical circles. Compiling Puranas in order to donate them to Brahmans is nevertheless presented as a pious duty and a source of immense religious merit. And giving was the central modality through which the king connected himself to the Brahman. Gifts had ousted sacrificial rites as a source of religious merit and prestige.7 This is exactly the situation described in the Manusmrti (1.86bc): it is [authoritatively] said that [mens duty] was but the

1 See M. Torri, Storia dellIndia, Roma 2000, pp. 112 ff.; Nath, From Brahmanism to Hinduism cit., p. 21. 2 Ibid., p. 27. 3 See, for instance, H. Kulke-D. Rothermund, A History of India, New York 2004, p. 139. 4 Cf. Nath, From Brahmanism to Hinduism cit., p. 25. 5 Cf. Torella, Congelare il sapere cit., pp. 249 ff. 6 See, for instance, Piano, La tradizione cit., pp. 231 ff.; K. V. Sarma, Propagation of Written Literature in Indian Tradition in S. Dash (ed.), New Lights on Manuscriptology. A Collection of Articles of Prof. K.V. Sarma, Chennai 2007, pp. 80-94: 94. 7 See G. G. Raheja, India. Caste, Kingship, and Dominance Reconsidered, Annual Review of Anthropology 17 (1988), pp. 497-522: 501, 515; T. Brekke, Contradiction and the Merit of Giving in Indian Religions, Numen 45/3 (1998), pp. 287-320: 307.

propagation of written culture in brahmanical india this work, writing it or having it written, obtains the reward itself of the worship of Visnu [the supreme good].1 Given the Brahmans notorious wariness of writing, the idea that the activity of copying was a source of religious merit must originally have been of heterodox, probably Buddhist, origin. Even more so, Brahmans did not willingly show that they made intensive use of the technology of writing. It is probably not by coincidence that the Brahmanical resistance to writing grew feebler as the Buddhist presence in India decreased. Again, another idea of probable Buddhist origin, and part of the strategy of propagation, was that the book, viewed as a material object, could work as a talisman.2 According to the Agnipurana (382.70d-71a): one who has the book in his house need certainly not fear calamities.3 It is interesting to note that smrti was much more open to innovation, even if Puranas may have been reluctant to acknowledge it. They tend to present themselves as deep-rooted in remote ages or in revelation. In reality, these written texts were subject to recompilation in accordance with historical circumstances. It stands to reason that the preparation of a critical edition of these works is quite a difficult task, to say the least, one which scholars seldom embark upon.4 The oral tradition, or revelation, has been much less subject to recompilation without having escaped it completely, of course. Orthodox Brahmanism, based on the Vedas, is therefore more connected to orality, while Hinduism, based on Puranas, is more connected to aurality, which includes writing technology. Strange though it may seem, here the oral tradition is much more reliable in terms of conformity to the original supposing that such a thing ever existed. In effect, a written text tended to be perceived as an epiphenomenon of a transcendent reality, as a reflection of a true text that lay in another dimension. A book was but an approximation to this reality. As such, it could be modified at any moment in order to improve its level of fidelity, depending on the copyists inclinations and beliefs. Smrti was therefore mostly understood as a secondary manifestation of ruti. It was based on ruti, but it was also a buffer that prevented servants (udras) and women from coming into direct contact with ruti. Puranas were often regarded as a minor expression of the Veda,5 that is, as an interpretation, not the thing in itself. As a result they could always be emendated and ameliorated. ruti tended to be fixed and smrti to be dynamic. The written text bore the stamp of a true transcendent text, but the two remained distinct. The written text in itself did not offer readers or hearers a direct access to the true text, whose essence is son1 likhitva lekhayitva va yah astram idam arcayet|sa visnupujanasyaiva phalam prapnoti manavah|| Ed. Bombay 1867. 2 See Mackenzie Brown, Purana as Scripture cit., p. 77. 3 syat pustakam yasya vai grhe||tasyotpatabhayam nasti | 4 See, for instance, Piano, La tradizione cit., pp. 219 ff. 5 Cf., for instance, Rocher, The Puranas cit., pp. 14 ff.

93

ic. The only possible intermediary to the true text was a licensed teacher. The Manusmrti (2.226a) describes him as the tangible manifestation of the ultimate reality.6 Without him, a book would have been an inane material object.7 Historically it was not impossible, however, for certain smrti texts to be proclaimed ruti by their sectarian supporters. A Purana could be defined as a fifth Veda.8 For such a text, a word-by-word oral transmission then became a fundamental requirement. In reality, there could be a certain dialectic between word-by-word transmission and written recompilation.9 Both tendencies could affect a text, and one could prevail over the other depending on historical circumstances. Conclusions The Vedas could not be written down, at least initially, because they were not regarded as texts in the usual sense of the word. Rather, they embodied the irruption of the ultimate reality into the conventional world through the medium represented by the teacher. Writing them would have meant parodying them. And since the Vedas worked as a model for every possible religious or philosophical knowledge, any authoritative text was regarded as having a sonic essence. Consequently it had to proceed from a teacher, not from a written text. As a result, the semantic dimension of an authoritative text was deemed secondary.10 Otherwise one could have said the same things with different words. But this would have meant a change in the sonic essence of the text, which was impossible. Diverging from the true text does not imply the production of a new version of the same text. On the contrary, the result would be zero or even a heretic caricature, if anything. The written text was understood as a realization, but always defective, of a perfect sonic essence. In the case of a revealed text, the written realization relied directly on the sonic essence. In the case of a text of human origin, the relation with the sonic essence the Vedas, in the last analysis was only indirect. Even in this case, that essence remained so pivotal that the historical circumstances in which the text had been written down, and the fact itself that it was written down, were always seen as negligible. Probably this ideology was developed as a factor of self-identification in opposition to those thriving cultural spheres that attached great importance to books. This led to a paradox: Brahmanical culture had to develop its own holy scriptures, smrti, as a practical instrument to struggle for possession of the masses but, at the same time, the writing down of these scriptures was hardly ever acknowledged.
6 acaryo brahmano murtih | 7 Cf. Coburn, Scripture in India cit., p. 444. 8 See, for instance, Smith, Reflections on Resemblance cit., p. 22. 9 Cf. Coburn, Scripture in India cit., p. 450. 10 Ibid., pp. 445 ff.