PAGE Saluting . . . . . . . . . . 207 Times of Distress. . . . . . . . 2mr A King and Braéhmama versed in the Vedas. . . 204 The Duties of a Snataka . . . . . . . 218 Lawful Occupations and Livelihood . .¢ 4+ ---s: os + _227__ The Duties of a King. : . . . . . 234 Civil and Criminal Law . . . . . . . 238 Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . 246 Impurity... : . . . . . . »_ 249° Funeral Oblations . . . . . . . . 255 The Study of the Veda . . . . . . . 259 Eating, and Forbidden Food . . . . . . 265 Women . . . . . . . . . . 270 Penances . . . . . . . . . . 274 Inheritance . . . . . . . . - 302
Transliteration of Oriental Alphabets adopted for the Translations of the Sacred Books of the East . . . - git
INTRODUCTION
TO
APASTAMBA.
For all students of Sanskrit philology and Indian history Apastamba’s aphorisms on the sacred law of the Aryan Hindus possess a special interest beyond that attaching to other works of the same class. Their discovery enabled Professor Max Miller, forty-seven years ago, to dispose finally of the Brahmanical legend according to which Hindu society was supposed to be governed by the codes of ancient sages, compiled for the express purpose of tying down each individual to his station, and of strictly regulating even the smallest acts of his daily life’. It enabled
' Max Miiller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 133 seq.
The following letter, addressed to the late W. H. Morley, and published by him in his Digest of Indian Cases, 1850, may be of interest as connected with the first discovery of the Apastamba-siitras :—
It enabled
' Max Miiller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 133 seq.
The following letter, addressed to the late W. H. Morley, and published by him in his Digest of Indian Cases, 1850, may be of interest as connected with the first discovery of the Apastamba-siitras :—
9, Park Place, Oxford, July 29, 1849.
My DEAR Mortey,—I have been looking again at the law literature, in order to write you a note on the sources of Manu. I have treated the subject fully in my introduction to the Veda, where I have given an outline of the different periods of Vaidik literature, and analysed the peculiarities in the style and language of each class of Vaidik works. What I congider to be the sources of the Manava-dharma-sdstra, the so-called Laws of Manu, are the Sfttras. These are works which presuppose the development of the prose literature of the Brahmamas (like the Aitareya-brahmama, Taittirtya-brahmasa, &c.) These Br&éhmaaas, again, presuppose, not only the existence, but the collection and arrangement of the old hymns of the four Samhitas. The Sitras are therefore later than both these classes of Vaidik works, but they must be considered as belonging to the Vaidik period of literatnre, not only on account of their intimate connection with Vaidik subjects, but also because they still exhibit the irregularities of the old Vaidik language. They form indeed the last branch of Vaidik literature ; and it will perhaps be possible to fix some of these works chronologically, as they are contemporary with the first spreading of Buddhism in India.
Again, in the whole of Vaidik literature there is no work written (like the Manava-dharma-sastra) in the regular epic Sloka, and the continuous employment of this metre is a characteristic mark of post-Vaidik writings.
One of the principal classes of Sfitras is known by the name of Kalpa-s(tras, x APASTAMBA.
him not only to arrive at this negative result, but also to substitute a sounder theory the truth of which subsequent investigations have further confirmed, and to show that the sacred law of the Hindus has its source in the teaching of the Vedic schools, and that the so-called revealed law codes are, in most cases, but improved metrical editions of older
or rules of ceremonies. These are avowedly composed by human authors, while, according to Indian orthodox theology, both the hymns and Brahmasas are to be considered as revelation. The Sfitras generally bear the name of their authors, like the Satras of Asvalayana, Katyayana, &c., or the name of the family to which the Sftras belonged. The great number of these writings is to be accounted for by the fact that there was not one body of Kalpa-sfitras binding on all Brahmanic families, but that different old families had each their own Kalpa-sitras. These works are still very frequent in our libraries, yet there is no doubt that many of them have been lost. Sfitras are quoted which do not exist in Europe, and the loss of some is acknowledged by the Brahmans themselves, There are, however, lists of the old Brahmanic families which were in possession of their own redaction of Vaidik hymns (Samhitas), of Brahmamas, and of Sitras. Some of these families followed the Rig-veda, some the Yagurveda, the SAma-veda, and Atharva-veda; and thus the whole Vaidik literature becomes divided into four great classes of Brahmazas and Sfitras, belonging to one or the other of the four principal Vedas,
Some of these families followed the Rig-veda, some the Yagurveda, the SAma-veda, and Atharva-veda; and thus the whole Vaidik literature becomes divided into four great classes of Brahmazas and Sfitras, belonging to one or the other of the four principal Vedas,
Now one of the families following the Yagur-veda was that of the Manavas (cf. Karazavyiha). There can be no doubt that that family, too, had its own Sftras. Quotations from M4nava-sitras are to be met with in commentaries on other Sfitras; and I have found, not long ago, a MS. which contains the text of the Manava-srauta-sfitras, though in a very fragmentary state. But these Sitras, the Srauta-sfitras, treat only of a certain branch of ceremonies connected with the great sacrifices. Complete Sftra works are divided into three parts: 1. the first (Srauta), treating on the great sacrifices; 2. the second (Grzhya), treating on the Samsk4ras, or the purificatory sacraments; 3. the third (SAmayd#arika or Dharma-sitras), treating on temporal duties, customs, and punishments. The last two classes of Sftras seem to be lost in the MAnava-sitra. This loss is, however, not so great with regard to tracing the sources of the Manava-dharmasastra, because whenever we have an opportunity of comparing Sfitras belonging to different families, but following the same Veda, and treating on the same subjects, the differences appear to be very slight, and only refer to less important niceties of the ceremonial, In the absence, therefore, of the MAanava-simay4karika-sfitras, I have taken another collection of Sfitras, equally belonging to the Yagur-veda, the Sitras of Apastamba. In his family we have not only a Brahmama, but also Apastamba Srauta, Griéhya, and Samay4édrika-sfitras. Now it is, of course, the third class of Sftras, on temporal duties, which are most likely to contain the sources of the later metrical Codes of Law, written in the classical Sloka. On a comparison of different subjects, such as the duties of a Brahmadrin, a Grthastha, laws of inheritance, duties of a king, forbidden fruit, &c., I find that the Sftras contain generally almost the same words which have been brought into verse by the compiler of the MAanava-
INTRODUCTION. « x1
prose works which latter, in the first instance, were destined to be committed to memory by the young Aryan students, and to teach them their duties. This circumstance, as well as the fact that Apastamba’s work is free from any suspicion of having been tampered with by sectarians or modern editors, and that its intimate connection with the manuals teaching the performance of the great and small sacrifices, the Srauta and Grthya-sitras, which are attributed to the same author, is perfectly clear and indisputable, entitle it, in spite of its comparatively late origin, to the first place in a collection of Dharma-sitras.
The Apastambiya Dharma-sfitra forms part of an enormous Kalpa-sitra or body of aphorisms, which digests the teaching of the Veda and of the ancient Rishis regarding the performance of sacrifices and the duties of twice-born men, Brahmazas, Kshatriyas, and Vaisyas, and which, being chiefly based on the second of the four Vedas, the Yagurveda in the Taittiriya recension, is primarily intended for the benefit of the Adhvaryu priests in whose families the study of the Yagur-veda is hereditary.
The entire Kalpa-sdtra of Apastamba is divided into dharma-sAstra. I consider, therefore, the S{itras as the principal source of the metrical Smrstis, such as the Manava-dharma-sastra, Yagf#avalkya-dharmasastra, &c., though there are also many other verses in these works which may be traced to different sources. They are paraphrases of verses of the Samzhitas, or of passages of the Brahmawas, often retaining the same old words and archaic constructions which were in the original. This is indeed acknowledged by the author of the M4nava-dharma-sastra, when he says (B. II, v. 6), ‘The roots of the Law are the whole Veda (Samhitas and Brahmamas), the customs and traditions of those who knew the Veda (as laid down in the Sfitras), the conduct of good men, and one’s own satisfaction.’ The Manava-dharmasastra may thus be considered as the last redaction of the laws of the MAnavas. Quite different is the question as to the old Manu from whom the family probably derived its origin, and who is said to have been the author of some very characteristic hymns in the Rig-veda-samhité. He certainly cannot be considered as the author of a Manava-dharma-sastra, nor is there even any reason to suppose the author of this work to have had the same name. It is evident that the author of the metrical Code of Laws speaks of the old Manu as of a person different from himself, when he says (B. X, v. 63), ‘Not to kill, not to lie, not to steal, to keep the body clean, and to restrain the senses,
this was the short law which Manu proclaimed a: the four castes.’— Yours truly, M. M. (Zee RY OF 4X
ia re i JrirO™ .
THEGI fas OG Pade
{ Se NaRY
{ xil . APASTAMBA.
X, v. 63), ‘Not to kill, not to lie, not to steal, to keep the body clean, and to restrain the senses,
this was the short law which Manu proclaimed a: the four castes.’— Yours truly, M. M. (Zee RY OF 4X
ia re i JrirO™ .
THEGI fas OG Pade
{ Se NaRY
{ xil . APASTAMBA.
thirty sections, called Prasnas, literally questions’. The first twenty-four of these teach the performance of the so-called Srauta or VaitAnika sacrifices, for which several sacred fires are required, beginning with the simplest rites, the new and full moon offerings, and ending with the complicated Sattras or sacrificial sessions, which last a whole year or even longer*. The twenty-fifth Prasna contains the Paribhdshds or general rules of interpretation *, which are valid for the whole Kalpa-sitra, the Pravara-khanda, the chapter enumerating the patriarchs of the various Brahmanical tribes, and finally the Hautraka, prayers to be recited by the Hotraka priests. The twenty-sixth section gives the Mantras or Vedic prayers and formulas for the Grihya rites, the ceremonies for which the sacred domestic or Grihya fire is required, and the twenty-seventh the rules for the performance of the latter*. The aphorisms on the sacred law fill the next two Prasnas ; and the Sulvasitra®, teaching the geometrical principles, according to which the altars necessary for the Srauta sacrifices must be constructed, concludes the work with the thirtieth Prasna. The position of the Dharma-sitra in the middle of the collection at once raises the presumption that it originally formed an integral portion of the body of Sitras and that it is not a later addition. Had it been added later, it would either stand at the end of the thirty Prasnas or altogether outside the collection, as is the case with some other treatises attributed to Apastamba®. The Hindus are, no doubt, unscrupulous in adding to the works of famous teachers. But such additions, if of considerable extent, are usually not embodied in the works themselves which they are intended to supplement. They are mostly given
1 Burnell, Indian Antiquary, I, 5 seq.
3 The Srauta-s(itra, Pr. I-XV, has been edited by Professor R. Garbe in the Bibliotheca Indica, and the remainder is in the press.
3 See Professor Max Miiller’s Translation in S. B. E., vol. xxx.
* The Grshya-sitra has been edited by Dr. Winternitz, Vienna, 1887.
5 On the Sulva-sitras see G. Thibaut in ‘the Pandit,’ 1875, p. 292.
* Burnell, loc. cit.
INTRODUCTION. xiii
as seshas or parisish/as, tacked on at the end, and generally marked as such in the MSS.
B. E., vol. xxx.
* The Grshya-sitra has been edited by Dr. Winternitz, Vienna, 1887.
5 On the Sulva-sitras see G. Thibaut in ‘the Pandit,’ 1875, p. 292.
* Burnell, loc. cit.
INTRODUCTION. xiii
as seshas or parisish/as, tacked on at the end, and generally marked as such in the MSS.
In the case of the Apastamba Dharma-sitra it is, however, not necessary to rely on its position alone, in order to ascertain its genuineness. There are unmistakable indications that it is the work of the same author who wrote the remainder of the Kalpa-sdtra. One important argument in favour of this view is furnished by the fact that Prasna X XVII, the section on the Grzhya ceremonies, has evidently been made very short and concise with the intention of saving matter for the subsequent sections on the sacred law. The Apastambiya Grthya-sitra contains nothing beyond a bare outline of the domestic ceremonies, while most of the other Gvzhya-sitras, e.g. those of Asvalayana, Sankh4yana, Gobhila, and P4raskara, include a great many rules which bear indirectly only on the performance of the offerings in the sacred domestic fire. Thus on the occasion of the description of the initiation of Aryan students, Asvalayana inserts directions regarding the dress and girdle to be worn, the length of the studentship, the manner of begging, the disposal of the alms collected, and other similar questions?. The exclusion of such incidental remarks on subjects that are not immediately connected with the chief aim of the work, is almost complete in Apastamba’s Grihya-sitra, and reduces its size to less than one half of the extent of the shorter ones among the works enumerated above. It seems impossible to explain this restriction of the scope of Prasna XXVII otherwise than by assuming that Apastamba wished to reserve all rules bearing rather on the duties of men than on the performance of the domestic offerings, for his sections on the sacred law.
A second and no less important argument for the unity of the whole Kalpa-sitra may be drawn from the cross-references which occur in several Prasnas. Inthe Dharma-s(tra we find that on various occasions, where the performance
1 Asvalayana Grihya-sitra I, 19, ed. Stenzler.
xiv APASTAMBA.
A second and no less important argument for the unity of the whole Kalpa-sitra may be drawn from the cross-references which occur in several Prasnas. Inthe Dharma-s(tra we find that on various occasions, where the performance
1 Asvalayana Grihya-sitra I, 19, ed. Stenzler.
xiv APASTAMBA.
of a ceremony is prescribed, the expressions yathoktam, ‘as has been stated,’ yathopadesam, ‘according to the injunction,’ or yatha purastat, ‘as above, are added. In four of these passages, Dh. I, 1, 4,16; II, 2, 3,17; 2, 5,4; and 7,17, 16, the Grthya-sitra is doubtlessly referred to, and the commentator Haradatta has pointed out this fact. On the other hand, the Gvzhya-sitra refers to the Dharma-satra, employing the same expressions which have been quoted from the latter. Thus we read in the beginning of the chapter on funeral oblations, Grzhya-sOtra VIII, 21, 1, mAsisraddhasy4parapakshe yathopadesam kalad, ‘ the times for the monthly funeral sacrifice (fall) in the latter (dark) half of the month according to the injunction.’ Now as neither the Grzhya-sitra itself nor any preceding portion of the Kalpa-sitra contains any injunction on this point, it follows that the long passage on this subject which occurs in the Dharma-sitra II, 7, 16, 4-22 is referred to. The expression yathopadesam is also found in other passages of the Grzhya-sitra, and must be explained there in a like manner! There are further a certain number of Sftras which occur in the same words both in the Prasna on domestic rites, and in that on the sacred law, e.g. Dh. I, 1, 1,18; I, 1, 2, 38; I, 1, 4,14. It seems that the author wished to call special attention to these rules by repeating them. Their recurrence and literal agreement may be considered an additional proof of the intimate connection of the two sections.
Through a similar repetition of, at least, one Sitra it is possible to trace the connection of the Dharma-sitra with the Srauta-sitra. The rule vitve va gay4m, ‘or (he may have conjugal intercourse) with his wife in the proper season,’ is given, Dh. II, 2, 5,17, with reference to a householder who teaches the Veda. In the Srauta-s(tra it occurs twice, in the sections on the new and full moon sacrifices III, 17, 8, and again in connection with the Katurmasya offerings, VIII, 4, 6, and it refers both times
1 See the details, given by Dr. Winternitz in his essay, Das altindische Hochzeitsrituell, p. 5 (Denkschr. Wiener Akademie, Bd. 40).
INTRODUCTION. XV
Winternitz in his essay, Das altindische Hochzeitsrituell, p. 5 (Denkschr. Wiener Akademie, Bd. 40).
INTRODUCTION. XV
to the sacrificer. In the first passage the verb, upeyat, is added, which the sense requires; in the second it has the abbreviated form, which the best MSS. of the Dharmasdtra offer. The occurrence of the irregular word, ritve for ritvye, in all the three passages, proves clearly that we have to deal with a self-quotation of the same author. If the Dharma-sitra were the production of a different person and a later addition, the Pseudo-Apastamba would most probably not have hit on this peculiar irregular form. Finally, the Gvrzhya-sitra, too, contains several crossreferences to the Srauta-sitra, and the close agreement of the Sfitras on the Vedic sacrifices, on the domestic rites, and on the sacred, both in language and style, conclusively prove that they are the compositions of one author ?.
Who this author really was, is a problem which cannot be solved for the present, and which probably will always remain unsolved, because we know his family name only. For the form of the word itself shows that the name Apastamba, just like those of most founders of Vedic schools, e.g. Bhdradvaga, Asvalayana, Gautama, is a patronymic. This circumstance is, of course, fatal to all attempts at an identification of the individual who holds so prominent a place among the teachers of the Black Yagur-veda.
But we are placed in a somewhat better position with respect to the history of the school which has been named after Apastamba and of the works ascribed to him. Regarding both, some information has been preserved by tradition, and a little more can be obtained from inscriptions and later works, while some interesting details regarding the time when, and the place where the Sitras were composed, may be elicited from the latter themselves. The data, obtainable from these sources, it is true, do not enable us to determine with certainty the year when the Apastambiya school was founded, and when its Satras were composed. But they make it possible to ascertain the position of the school and of its Sdtras in Vedic litera-
1 See Dr. Winternitz, loc. cit.
Xvi APASTAMBA.
ture, their relative priority or posteriority as compared with other Vedic schools and works, to show with some amount of probability in which part of India they had their origin, and to venture, at least, a not altogether unsupported conjecture as to their probable antiquity.
Xvi APASTAMBA.
ture, their relative priority or posteriority as compared with other Vedic schools and works, to show with some amount of probability in which part of India they had their origin, and to venture, at least, a not altogether unsupported conjecture as to their probable antiquity.
As regards the first point, the Karazavydha, a supplement of the White Yagur-veda which gives the lists of the Vedic schools, informs us that the Apastambiya school formed one of the five branches of the Khazdikiya school, which in its turn was a subdivision of the Taittiriyas, one of the ancient sections of Brahmazas who study the Black Yagur-veda. Owing to the very unsatisfactory condition of the text of the Karavzavydha it is unfortunately not possible to ascertain what place that work really assigns to the Apastambiyas among the five branches of the Khazdikiyas. Some MSS. name them first, and others last. They give either the following list, 1. K4leyas (KAletas), 2. Satydyanins, 3. Hirazyakesins, 4. Bharadvagins, and 5. Apastambins, or, 1. Apastambins, 2. Baudhéyanins or Bodhayanins, 3. SatyAshadhins, 4. Hirazyakesins, 5. Aukheyas'. But this defect is remedied to a certain extent by the now generally current, and probably ancient tradition that the Apastambiyas are younger than the school of Baudhayana, and older than that of Saty4shadha Hiranyakesin. Baudhayana, it is alleged, composed the first set of Satras connected with the Black Yagurveda, which bore the special title ‘pravagana,’ and he was succeeded by Bhdradvaga, Apastamba, and Satyéshadha Hirazyakesin, who all founded schools which bear their names ?.
1 Max Miller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 371. A MS. of the Xaramavyfha with an anonymous commentary, in my possession, has the following passage :
aiizearat ca der aie | MTRet Biwraat aan? (ew agt arent fr.
? Max Miiller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 194. These statements occur in the introduction of Mahadeva’s commentary on the Srauta-siitra of Hirasyakesin (Weber, Hist. Sansk. Lit., p. 110, and ed.) and in an interpolated passage of Bharadvaga’s Grihya-sitra (Winternitz, op. cit., p. 8, note 1), as well as, with the omission of Bharadv4ga’s name, in interpolated passages of
INTRODUCTION. xvii
This tradition has preserved two important pieces of information. First, the Apastamba school is what Professor Max Miiller appropriately calls a Sdtrakaraaa, i.e. a school whose founder did not pretend to have received a revelation of Vedic Mantras or of a Brahmaza text, but merely gave a new systematic arrangement of the precepts regarding sacrifices and the sacred law. Secondly, the Satras of Apastamba occupy an intermediate position between the works of Baudh4yana and Hiramyakesin. Both these statements are perfectly true, and capable of being supported by proofs, drawn from Apastamba’s own and from other works.
Secondly, the Satras of Apastamba occupy an intermediate position between the works of Baudh4yana and Hiramyakesin. Both these statements are perfectly true, and capable of being supported by proofs, drawn from Apastamba’s own and from other works.
As regards the first point, Professor Max Miiller has already pointed" out that, though we sometimes find a Brahmana of the Apastambiyas mentioned, the title Apastamba-brahmava is nothing but another name of the Taittiriya-bradhmaza, and that this Brahmaza, in reality, is always attributed to Tittiri or to the pupils of Vaisampayana, who are said to have picked up the Black Yagurveda in the shape of partridges (tittiri). The same remark applies to the collection of the Mantras of the Black Yagurveda, which, likewise, is sometimes named Apastambasamhita. The Karanavytha states explicitly that the five branches of the Khazdikiya school, to which the Apastambiyas belong, possess one and the same recension of the revealed texts, consisting of 7 Kaxdas, 44 Prasnas, 651 Anuvakas, 2198 Pannasis, 19290 Padas?, and 253,868 syllables, and indicates thereby that all these five schools were Sitrakaramas.
If we now turn to Apastamba’s own works, we find still
BandhAyana’s Dharma-sitra (II, 5, 9, 14) and of the same author's Grthyasftra (Sicred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. xxxvi, note 1). Adherents of a Prava‘ana-s(tra, no doubt identical with that of Baudhayana, the Prava- Ranakarta (Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. xxxvi), are mentioned in a land grant, originally issued by the Pallava king Nandivarman in the beginning of the eighth century a.p., see Hultzsch, South Indian Inscriptions, vol. ii, p- 361 seqq.; see also Weber, Hist. Sansk. Lit., p. 110, and ed.
1 Max Miiller, op. cit., p. 195.
3 See also Weber, Ind. Lit., p. 98, and ed.
[2]
XViil APASTAMBA.
ii, p- 361 seqq.; see also Weber, Hist. Sansk. Lit., p. 110, and ed.
1 Max Miiller, op. cit., p. 195.
3 See also Weber, Ind. Lit., p. 98, and ed.
[2]
XViil APASTAMBA.
clearer proof that he laid no claim to the title Rishi, or inspired seer of Vedic texts. For (Dharma-sitra I, 2, 5, 4-5) he says distinctly that on account of the prevalent transgression of the rules of studentship no Rishis are born among the Avaras, the men of later ages or of modern times, but that some, by virtue of a residue of the merit which they acquired in former lives, become similar to Rishis by their knowledge of the Veda. A man who speaks in this manner, shows that he considers the holy ages during which the great saints saw with their mind's eye the uncreated and eternal texts of the Veda to be past, and that all he claims is a thorough acquaintance with the scriptures which had been handed down to him. The same spirit which dictated this passage is also observable in other portions of the Dharma-sdtra. For Apastamba repeatedly contrasts the weakness and sinfulness of the Avaras, the men of his own times, with the holiness of the ancient sages, who, owing to the greatness of their ‘lustre,’ were able to commit various forbidden acts without diminishing their spiritual merit!. These utterances prove that Apastamba considered himself a child of the Kali Yuga, the age of sin, during which, according to Hindu notions, no Rishis can be born. If, therefore, in spite of this explicit disclaimer, the Saszhité and the Brahmamza of the Black Yagur-veda are sometimes called Apastamba or Apastambiya, i.e. belonging to Apastamba, the meaning of this expression can only be, that they were and are studied and handed down by the school of Apastamba, not that its founder was their author, or, as the Hindus would say, saw them.
The fact that Apastamba confined his activity to the composition of Sftras is highly important for the determination of the period to which he belonged. It clearly shows that in his time the tertiary or Sdtra period of the Yagur-veda had begun. Whether we assume, with Professor Max Miller, that the Sftra period was one and the same for all the four Vedas, and fix its limits with him
1 Dharma-sitra II, 6, 13, 1-10; II, 10, 27, 4.
INTRODUCTION. X1X
between 600-200 B.C., or whether we believe, as I am inclined to do, that the date of the Sitra period differed for each Veda, still the incontestable conclusion is that the origin of the Apastambiya school cannot be placed in the early times of the Vedic period, and probably falls in the last six or seven centuries before the beginning of the Christian era.
The correctness of the traditional statement that Apastamba is younger than Baudhayana may be made very probable by the following considerations. First, Baudhayana’s and Apastamba’s works on Dharma have a considerable number of Sfitras in common. Thus in the chapter on Penances not less than seven consecutive Sitras, prescribing the manner in which outcasts are to live and to obtain readmission into the Brahmanical community for their children, occur in both treatises’. Besides this passage, there are a number of single Sftras? which agree literally. Taken by itself this agreement does not prove much, as it may be explained in various ways. It may show either that Baudhdyana is older than Apastamba, and that the latter borrowed from the former, or that the reverse was the case. It may also indicate that both authors drew from one common source. But if it is taken together with two other facts, it gains a considerable importance. First, Apastamba holds in several cases doctrines which are of a later origin than those held by Baudhayana. With respect to this point the puritan opinions which Apastamba puts forward regarding the substitutes for legitimate sons and regarding the appointment of widows (niyoga), and his restriction of the number of marriage-rites, may be adduced as examples. Like many other ancient teachers, Baudhdyana permits childless Aryans to satisfy their craving for representatives bearing their name, and to allay their fears of falling after death into the regions of torment through a failure of the funeral oblations, by the affiliation
1 Baudh. Dh. II, 1, 2, 18-23 =Ap. Dh. I, 10, 29, 8-14. 2 E.g. Ap. Dh. I, 1, 2, 30; I, 2, 6, 8-9; I, 5, 15, 8 correspond respectively to Baudh. Dh. I, 2, 3, 39-40; I, 2, 3, 38; I, a, 3, 29.
b 2
XX APASTAMBA.
of eleven kinds of substitutes for a legitimate son. _Illegitimate sons, the illegitimate sons of wives, the legitimate and illegitimate offspring of daughters, and the children of relatives, or even of strangers who may be solemnly adopted, or received as members of the family without any ceremony, or be acquired by purchase, are all allowed to take the place and the rights of legitimate sons’. Apastamba declares his dissent from this doctrine. He allows legitimate sons alone to inherit their father’s estate and to follow the occupations of his caste, and he explicitly forbids the sale and gift of children *.
Apastamba declares his dissent from this doctrine. He allows legitimate sons alone to inherit their father’s estate and to follow the occupations of his caste, and he explicitly forbids the sale and gift of children *.
In like manner he protests against the custom of making over childless widows to brothers-in-law or other near relatives in order to obtain sons who are to offer the funeral oblations to the deceased husband’s manes, while Baudhayana has as yet no scruple on the subject*. Finally, he omits from his list of the marriage-rites the Paisdéa vivaha, where the bride is obtained by fraud‘; though it is reluctantly admitted by Baudhayana and other ancient teachers. There can be no doubt that the law which placed the regular continuance of the funeral oblations above all other considerations, and which allowed, in order to secure this object, even a violation of the sanctity of the marriage-tie and other breaches of the principles of morality, belongs to an older order of ideas than the stricter views of Apastamba. It is true that, according to Baudhdyana’s own statement®, before his time an ancient sage named Aupaganghani, who is also mentioned in the Satapathabrahmaza, had opposed the old practice of taking substitutes for a legitimate son. It is also very probable that for a long time the opinions of the Brahmaza teachers, who lived in different parts of India and belonged to different schools, may have been divided on this subject. Still it seems very improbable that of two authors who both belong to the same Veda and to the same school, the
* Baudh. Dh. II, 2, 3, 17 seqq. 2 Ap. Dh. II, 5, 13, 1-2, 11.
* Ap. Dh. II, 10, 27, 2-7. * Ap. Db. II, 5, 11 and 12. § Baudh. Dh. II, 2, 3, 33.
INTRODUCTION. XX1
earlier one should hold the later doctrine, and the later one the earlier opinion. The contrary appears the more probable assumption. The same remarks apply to the cases of the Niyoga and of the Paisa#a marriage !.
* Ap. Db. II, 5, 11 and 12. § Baudh. Dh. II, 2, 3, 33.
INTRODUCTION. XX1
earlier one should hold the later doctrine, and the later one the earlier opinion. The contrary appears the more probable assumption. The same remarks apply to the cases of the Niyoga and of the Paisa#a marriage !.
The second fact, which bears on the question how the identity of so many Sitras in the two Dharma-sitras is to be explained, affords a still stronger proof of Apastamba’s posteriority to Baudhdyana. For on several occasions, it appears, Apastamba controverts opinions which Baudhayana holds, or which may be defended with the help of the latter's Sftras. The clearest case of this kind occurs in the chapter on Inheritance, where the treatment of the eldest son on the division of the estate by the father is discussed. There Apastamba gives it as his own opinion that the father should make an equal division of his property ‘ after having gladdened the eldest son by some (choice portion of his) wealth,’ i.e. after making him a present which should have some value, but should not be so valuable as to materially affect the equality of the shares*. Further on he notices the opinions of other teachers on this subject, and states that the practice advocated by some, of allowing the eldest alone to inherit, as well as the custom prevailing in some countries, of allotting to the eldest all the father’s gold, or the black cows, or the black iron and grain, is not in accordance with the precepts of the Vedas. In order to prove the latter assertion he quotes a passage of the Taittiriya Samhita, in which it is declared that ‘ Manu divided his wealth among his sons,’ and no difference in the treatment of the eldest son is prescribed. He adds that a second passage occurs in the same Veda, which declares that ‘ they distinguish the eldest son by (a larger portion of) the heritage, and which thus apparently countenances the partiality for the first-born. But this second passage, he contends, appealing to the
1 For another case, the rules, referring to the composition for homicide, regarding which Apastamba holds later views than Baudh&yana, see the Festgrass an R. von Roth, pp. 47-48.
2 Ap. Dh. II, 6, 13, 13, and II, 6, 14, 1.
Xxli APASTAMBA.
But this second passage, he contends, appealing to the
1 For another case, the rules, referring to the composition for homicide, regarding which Apastamba holds later views than Baudh&yana, see the Festgrass an R. von Roth, pp. 47-48.
2 Ap. Dh. II, 6, 13, 13, and II, 6, 14, 1.
Xxli APASTAMBA.
opinion of the Mimamsists, is, like many similar ones, merely a statement of a fact which has not the authority of an injunction', If we now turn to Baudhdayana, we find that he allows of three different methods for the distribution of the paternal estate. According to him, either an equal share may be given to each son, or the eldest may receive the best part of the wealth, or, also, a preferential share of one tenth of the whole property. He further alleges that the cows, horses, goats, and sheep respectively go to the eldest sons of Brahmauzas, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Sfidras. As authority for the equal division he gives the first of the two Vedic passages quoted above ; and for the doctrine that the eldest is to receive the best part of the estate, he quotes the second passage which Apastamba considers to be without the force of an injunction*. The fact that the two authors’ opinions clash is manifest, and the manner in which Apastamba tries to show that the second Vedic passage possesses no authority, clearly indicates that before his time it had been held to contain an injunction. As ho other author of a Dharmastra but Baudhdyana is known to have quoted it, the conclusion is that Apastamba’s remarks are directed against him. If Apastamba does not mention Baudhdyana by name, the reason probably is that in olden times, just as in the present day, the Brahmanical etiquette forbad a direct opposition against doctrines propounded by an older teacher who belongs to the same spiritual family (vidyavamsa) as oneself.
A similar case occurs in the chapter on Studentship 3, where Apastamba, again appealing to the Mimamsists, combats the doctrine that pupils may eat forbidden food, such as honey, meat, and pungent condiments, if it is given to them as leavings by their teacher. Baudh4yana gives no explicit rule on this point, but the wording of his Satras is not opposed to the doctrine and practice, to which Apastamba objects. Baudhayana says that students
1 Ap. Dh. II, 6, 14, 6-13. 2 Baudh. Dh. II, 2, 3, 2-7. > Ap. Dh. I, 1, 4, 5-7.
INTRODUCTION. XXili
Baudh4yana gives no explicit rule on this point, but the wording of his Satras is not opposed to the doctrine and practice, to which Apastamba objects. Baudhayana says that students
1 Ap. Dh. II, 6, 14, 6-13. 2 Baudh. Dh. II, 2, 3, 2-7. > Ap. Dh. I, 1, 4, 5-7.
INTRODUCTION. XXili
shall avoid honey, meat, pungent condiments, &c.; he further enjoins that pupils are to obey their teachers except when ordered to commit crimes which cause loss of caste (pataniya); and he finally directs them to eat the fragments of food given to them by their teachers. As the eating of honey and other forbidden substances is not a crime causing loss of caste, it is possible that Baudhayana himself may have considered it the duty of a pupil to eat any kind of food given by the teacher, even honey and meat. At all events the practice and doctrine which Apastamba blames, may have been defended by the wording of Baudhayana’s rules!.
The three points which have been just discussed, viz. the identity of a number of Sftras in the works of the two authors, the fact that Apastamba advocates on some points more refined or puritan opinions, and, especially, that he labours to controvert doctrines contained in Baudhdyana’s Sdtras, give a powerful support to the traditional statement that he is younger than that teacher. It is, however, difficult to say how great the distance between the two really is. Mah4deva, as stated above, places between them only Bharadvaga, the author of a set of Sdtras, which as yet have not been completely recovered. But it seems to me not likely that the latter was his immediate predecessor in the vidyAvamsa or spiritual family to which both belonged. For it cannot be expected that two successive heads of the school should each have composed a Sdtra and thus founded a new branch-school. It is
Cases, in which Apastamba’s Grthya-sfitra appears to refer to, or to controvert, Baudhayana’s Grehya-siitra, have been collected by Dr. Winternitz, op. cit., p.8. Dr. Burnell, Tanjore Catalogue, p. 34, too, considers Baudhayana to be older than Apastamba, because his style is so much simpler. With this remark may be compared Dr. Winternitz’s very true assertion that BaudhAyana’s style resembles sometimes, especially in the discussion of disputed points, that of the Brahmavas. On the other hand, Dr. R. G. Bhamdarkar, Second Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS., p. 34, believes Baudhayana to be later than Apastamba and Bharadvaga, because he teaches other developments of sacrificial rites, unknown to the other two Sfitrakaras. This may be true, but it must not be forgotten that every portion of Bandhayana’s Sitras, which has been subjected to a critical enquiry, has turned out to be much interpolated and enlarged by later hands.
XXIV APASTAMBA.
This may be true, but it must not be forgotten that every portion of Bandhayana’s Sitras, which has been subjected to a critical enquiry, has turned out to be much interpolated and enlarged by later hands.
XXIV APASTAMBA.
more probable that Baudh4yana and Bharadvaga, as well as the latter and Apastamba, were separated by several intervening generations of teachers, who contented themselves with explaining the works of their predecessors. The distance in years between the first and the last of the three SdtrakAras must, therefore, I think, be measured rather by centuries than by decades}.
As regards the priority of Apastamba to the school of Satydshadda Hiravyakesin, there can be no doubt about the correctness of this statement. For either Hirazyakesin himself, or, at least, his immediate successors have appropriated’ Apastamba’s Dharma-sdtra and have inserted it with slight modifications in their own collection. The alterations consist chiefly in some not very important additions, and in the substitution of more intelligible and more modern expressions for difficult and antiquated words *. But they do not extend so far as to make the language of the Dharma-sitra fully agree with that of the other sections of the collection, especially with the Grthya-sitra. Numerous discrepancies between these two parts are observable. Thus we read in the Hirazyakesi
1 The subjoined pedigree of the Sfitrakaras of the Black Yagur-veda will perhaps make the above remarks and my interpretation of the statements of Mahddeva and the other authorities mentioned above more intelligible :—
Khfzdika, taught the Taittirlya recension of the Black Yagur-veda.
(Successors of Khazdika, number unknown, down to)
Baudhfyana, Pravaéanakarta, i.e. rst Siitrak4ra, and founder of Baudhéyana-karana.
(Successors of Baudh4yana down to fellow-pupil of Bh&radvaga, number unknown.) (Successors of Baudhayana after the schism down to the present day.)
Bhfradvaga, and Sitrakdra, and founder of Bharadvaga-karama.
(Successors of Bharadvaga down i fellow- pupil of Apastamba, number unknown.) rs after the down to the present day.)
Apastambe, 3rd Sfitrakara, and founder of A pastamba-Aarama.
(Successors of Apastamba down to fellow-pupil of Satyashadka Hiranyakesin, number unknown
(Successors br Apastamba down to the present day.) SatyAshadha Hirazyakesin, 4th Sfitrakara, and founder of Hirazyakesi- Rarana. (Successors of Saty4shadsa Hirasxryakesin down to the present day.) After the schism of Satyash4da Hirazyakesin the pedigree has not been continued, though MahAdeva asserts that several other Sfitrakaras arose. But to work it out further would be useless. 2 See Appendix II to Part I of my second edition of Apastamba’s Dharmasitra, p. 117 seqq.
INTRODUCTION. XXV
But to work it out further would be useless. 2 See Appendix II to Part I of my second edition of Apastamba’s Dharmasitra, p. 117 seqq.
INTRODUCTION. XXV
Grihya-sitra that a Brahmava must, ordinarily, be initiated in his seventh year, while the rule of the Dharma-siatra, which is identical with Ap. Dh. I, 1, 1, 18, prescribes that the ceremony shall take place in the eighth year after conception. The commentators, Matrzdatta on the GréhyasQtra and Mahadeva on the Dharma-sitra, both state that the rule of the Grihya-sitra refers to the seventh year after birth, and, therefore, in substance agrees with the Dharma-sitra. They are no doubt right. But the difference in the wording shows that the two sections do not belong to the same author. The same inference may be drawn from the fact that the Hirazyakesi Grzhya-sitra, which is much longer than Apastamba’s, includes a considerable amount of matter which refers to the sacred law, and which is repeated in the Dharma-sftra. According to a statement which I have heard from several learned Brahmamas, the followers of Hirazyakesin, when pronouncing the samkalpa or solemn pledge to perform a ceremony, declare themselves to be members of the Hiramyakesi school that forms a subdivision of Apastamba’s (4pastambantargatahirazyakesisakhadhyayi...aham). But I have not been able to find these words in the books treating of the ritual of the Hirazyakesins, such as the Mahesabhad/i. If this assertion could be further corroborated, it would be an additional strong proof of the priority of Apastamba, which, however, even without it may be accepted as a fact '. The distance in time between the two teachers is probably not so great as that between Apastamba and Baudhayana, as Mahadeva mentions no intermediate Sdtrakara between them. Still it is probably not less than roo or 150 years. The results of the above investigation which show that the origin of the Apastamba school falls in the middle of the Sftra period of the Black Yagur-veda, and that its SQtras belong to the later, though not to the latest products of Vedic literature, are fully confirmed by an
1 Compare also Dr. Winternitz’s remarks on the dependence of the Gréhyasfitra of the Hiranyakesins on Apastamba’s, op. cit., p. 6 seqq., and the second edition of the Ap. Dh., Part I, p. xi.
Xxvi APASTAMBA.
Winternitz’s remarks on the dependence of the Gréhyasfitra of the Hiranyakesins on Apastamba’s, op. cit., p. 6 seqq., and the second edition of the Ap. Dh., Part I, p. xi.
Xxvi APASTAMBA.
examination of the quotations from and references to Vedic and other books contained in Apastamba’s Sftras, and especially in the Dharma-sitra. We find that all the four Vedas are quoted or referred to. The three old ones, the Aik, Yagus, and Sdman, are mentioned both separately and collectively by the name trayi vidya, i.e. threefold sacred science, and the fourth is called not Atharvangirasah, as is done in most ancient Sftras, but Atharva-veda!. The quotations from the Rzk and SAman are not very numerous. But a passage from the ninth Madala of the former, which is referred to Dh. I, 1, 2, 2, is of some extent, and shows that the recension which Apastamba knew, did not differ from that which still exists. As Apastamba was an adherent of the Black Yagur-veda, he quotes it, especially in the Srauta-sitra, very frequently, and he adduces not only texts from the Mantra-samhit4, but also from the Taittiriyabrahmava and Aranyaka. The most important quotations from the latter work occur Dh. II, 2, 3, 16-II, 2, 4, 9, where all the Mantras to be recited during the performance of the Bali-offerings are enumerated. Their order agrees exactly with that in which they stand in the sixty-seventh Anuvaka of the tenth Prapathaka of the recension of the Aranyaka which is current among the Andhra Braéhmamas *. This last point is of considerable importance, both for the history of the text of that book and, as we shall see further on, for the history of the Apastambiya school.
The White Yagur-veda, too, is quoted frequently in the Srauta-sdtra and once in the section on Dharma by the title Vagasaneyaka, while twice its Brahmawa, the Vagasaneyi-brahmama, is cited. The longer one of the two passages, taken from the latter work, Dh. I, 4, 12, 3, does, however, not fully agree with the published text of the Madhyandina recension. Its wording possesses just sufficient resemblance to allow us to identify the passage which Apastamba meant, but differs from the Satapatha-
1 Ap. Dh. II, 11, 29, 12. 3 The Taittirfya Aranyaka exists in three recensions, the Karna, Dravida, and the Andhra, the first of which has been commented on by Sayama,
INTRODUCTION. XXVii
Dh. II, 11, 29, 12. 3 The Taittirfya Aranyaka exists in three recensions, the Karna, Dravida, and the Andhra, the first of which has been commented on by Sayama,
INTRODUCTION. XXVii
brahmaza in many details'. The cause of these discrepancies remains doubtful for the present *. As regards the Atharvaveda, Apastamba gives, besides the reference mentioned above and a second to the Angirasa-pavitra 3, an abstract of a long passage from Atharva-veda XV, 10-13, regarding the treatment of a Vratya, i.e. a learned mendicant Brahmaza, who really deserves the title of an atithi, or guest‘. It is true that Apastamba, in the passage referred to, does not say that his rule is based on the Atharvaveda. He merely says that a Brahmaza is his authority. But it seems, nevertheless, certain that by the expression a Brahmana, the Brahmana-like fifteenth book of the Atharva-veda is meant, as the sentences to be addressed by the host to his guest agree literally with those which the Atharva-veda prescribes for the reception of a Vratya. Haradatta too, in his commentary, expresses the same opinion. Actual quotations from the Atharva-veda are not frequent in Vedic literature, and the fact that Apastamba’s Dharma-sitra contains one, is, therefore, of some interest.
Besides these Vedic texts*, Apastamba mentions, also, the Angas or auxiliary works, and enumerates six classes, viz. treatises on the ritual of the sacrifices, on grammar, astronomy, etymology, recitation of the Veda, and metrics °. The number is the same as that which is considered the correct one in our days’.
As the Dharma-sdtra names no less than nine teachers in connection with various topics of the sacred law, and frequently appeals to the opinion of some (eke), it follows that a great many such auxiliary treatises must have existed in Apastamba’s time. The Afaryas mentioned are Eka, Kanva, Kanva, Kunika, Kutsa, Kautsa, Push-
1 Compare on this point Professor Eggeling’s remarks in Sacred Books of the East, vol. xii, p. xxxix seqq.
2 See the passage from the Xaranavy(ihabhAshya given below, ver. 10.
3 Ap. Dh. I, a, 2, 2. * Ap. Dh. I, 3, 7, 12-17.
5 Some more are quoted in the Srauta-sfitra, see Professor Garbe in the Gurnpfgakaumudf, p. 33 seqq.
® Ap. Dh. II, 4, 8, 10.
1 See also Max Miller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 111.
XXVili APASTAMBA.
10.
3 Ap. Dh. I, a, 2, 2. * Ap. Dh. I, 3, 7, 12-17.
5 Some more are quoted in the Srauta-sfitra, see Professor Garbe in the Gurnpfgakaumudf, p. 33 seqq.
® Ap. Dh. II, 4, 8, 10.
1 See also Max Miller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 111.
XXVili APASTAMBA.
karasddi, Varshydyavi, Svetaketu, and Harita!, Some of these persons, like H4rita and Kazva, are known to have composed Sfitras on the sacred law, and fragments or modified versions of their works are still in existence, while KAzva, Kautsa, PushkarasAdi or PaushkarasAdi, as the grammatically correct form of the name is, and Varshyayami are quoted in the Nirukta, the Pratisikhyas, and the V4rttikas on Pazini as authorities on phonetics, etymology, and grammar’. Kazva, finally, is considered the author of the still existing Kalpa-sitras of the Kazva school connected with the White Yagur-veda. It seems not improbable that most of these teachers were authors of. complete sets of Angas. Their position in Vedic literature, however, except as far as Kazva, Harita, and Svetaketu are concerned, is difficult to define, and the occurrence of their names throws less light on the antiquity of the Apastambiya school than might be expected. Regarding Harita it must, however, be noticed that he is one of the oldest authors of S(tras, that he was an adherent of the Maitrayaziya Sakha 3, and that he is quoted by Baudhayana, Apastamba’s predecessor. The bearing of the occurrence of Svetaketu’s name will be discussed below.
Of even greater interest than the names of the teachers are the indications which Apastamba gives, that he knew two of the philosophical schools which still exist in India, viz. the Parva or Karma Mimdémsé and the Vedanta. As regards the former, he mentions it by its ancient name, Nyaya, which in later times and at present is usually applied to the doctrine of Gautama Akshap4da. In two passages * he settles contested points on the authority of those who know the Nydya, i.e. the Parva Mimamsa, and
1 Ap. Dh. I, 6, 19, 3-8; I, 10, 28, 1-2; I, 4,13, 10; I, 6, 18, 2; I, 6, 19, 12; I, 10, 28, 5, 16; I, 10, 29, 12-16.
3 Max Miller, loc. cit., p. 142.
5 A Dharma-siitra, ascribed to this teacher, has been recovered of late, by Mr. Vaman Shastri Islampurkar. Though it is an ancient work, it does not contain Apastamba’s quotations, see Grundriss d. Indo-Ar. Phil. und Altertumsk., II, 8, 8.
* Ap. Dh. II, 4, 8, 13; II, 6, 14, 13.
INTRODUCTION. XXiX
Vaman Shastri Islampurkar. Though it is an ancient work, it does not contain Apastamba’s quotations, see Grundriss d. Indo-Ar. Phil. und Altertumsk., II, 8, 8.
* Ap. Dh. II, 4, 8, 13; II, 6, 14, 13.
INTRODUCTION. XXiX
in several other cases he adopts a line of reasoning which fully agrees with that followed in Gaimini’s Mimss4-sdtras. Thus the arguments !, that ‘a revealed text has greater weight than a custom from which a revealed text may be inferred,’ and that ‘no text can be inferred from a custom for which a worldly motive is apparent,’ exactly correspond with the teaching of Gaimini’s Mim4ms4-sdtras I, 3, 3-4. The wording of the passages in the two works does not agree so closely that the one could be called a quotation of the other. But it is evident, that if Apastamba did not know the Mim4msa-sitras of Gaimini, he must have possessed some other very similar work. As to the Vedanta, Apastamba does not mention the name of the school. But Khazdas 22, 23 of the first Pazala of the Dharma-sitra unmistakably contain the chief tenets of the Vedantists, and recommend the acquisition of the knowledge of the Atman as the best means for purifying the souls of sinners. Though these two Khazdas are chiefly filled with quotations, which, as the commentator states, are taken from an Upanishad, still the manner of their selection, as well as Apastamba’s own words in the introductory and concluding Sitras, indicates that he knew not merely the unsystematic speculations contained in the Upanishads and Aranyakas, but a well-defined system of Vedantic philosophy identical with that of Badarayaza’s Brahma-sitras. The fact that Apastamba’s Dharma-s(itra contains indications of the existence of these two schools of philosophy, is significant as the ParvA MimAmsa occurs in one other Dharma-sdtra only, that attributed to Vasish¢sa, and as the name of the Vedanta school is not found in any of the prose treatises on the sacred law.
Of non-Vedic works Apastamba mentions the Purdza. The Dharma-sitra not only several times quotes passages from ‘a Purdza’ as authorities for its rules ?, but names in ‘one case the Bhavishyat-pur4za as the particular Puraza from which the quotation is taken*. References to the
1 Ap. Dh. I, 1, 14, 8, 9-10. 2 Ap. Dh. I, 6, 19, 133 1, 10, 29, 7. > Ap. Dh. II, 9, 24, 6.
XXX APASTAMBA.
Purdza in general are not unfrequent in other Sdtras on the sacred law, and even in older Vedic works. But Apastamba, as far as I know, is the only Sfatrakara who specifies the title of a particular Puraza, and names one which is nearly or quite identical with that of a work existing in the present day, and he is the only one, whose quotations can be shown to be, at least in part, genuine Paurazic utterances.
Among the so-called Upa-purazas we find one of considerable extent which bears the title Bhavishya-puraza or also Bhavishyat-purdza'. It is true that the passage quoted in the Dharma-sitra from the Bhavishyat-purdza is not to be found in the copy of the Bhavishya-purdva which I have seen. It is, therefore, not possible to assert positively that Apastamba knew the present homonymous work. Still, considering the close resemblance of the two titles, and taking into account the generally admitted fact that most if not all Purdwas have been remodelled and recast, it seems to me not unlikely that Apastamba’s
1 Aufrecht, Catalogus Catalogorum, p. 400.
2 Max Miller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., pp. 40-42. Weber, Literaturgeschichte, pp. 206-208. Though I fully subscribe to the opinion, held by the most illustrious Sanskritists, that, in general, the existing Purdvas are not identical with the works designated by that title in Vedic works, still I cannot believe that they are altogether independent of the latter. Nor can I agree to the assertion that the Purazas known to us, one and all, are not older than the tenth or eleventh century A.D. That is inadmissible, because Bérfint (India, I, 131) enumerates them as canonical books. And his frequent quotations from them prove that in 1030 A.D. they did not differ materially from those known to us (see Indian Antiquary, 19, 382 seqq.). Another important fact bearing on this point may be mentioned here, viz. that the poet Baza, who wrote shortly after 600 A.D., in the Srfharshaarita, orders his Paurazika to recite the Pavanaprokta-puraaa, i.e. the Vayu-puraza (Harshakarita, p. 61, Calcutta ed.). Dr. Hall, the discoverer of the life of Harsha, read in his copy Yavanaproktapurdaa, a title which, as he remarks, might suggest the idea that Baza knew the Greek epic poetry. But a comparison of the excellent Ahmadabéd and Benares Devanagari MSS. and of the Kasmir Sarada copies shows that the correct reading is the one given above. The earlier history of the Purdsas, which as yet is a mystery, will only be cleared up when a real history of the orthodox Hindu sects, especially of the Sivites and Vishzuites, has been written. It will, then, probably become apparent that the origin of these sects reaches back far beyond the rise of Buddhism and Jainism. It will also be proved