Transliteration of Oriental Alphabets adopted for the Translations of the Sacred Books of the East. 313
List OF THE MORE IMPORTANT ABBREVIATIONS.
Apast. — Apastamba’s Dharma-sitra, ed. Buhler.
Asv. — Asvalayana’s Grthya-sfttra, ed. Stenzler.
Gaut. — Gautama’s Dharmasdstra, ed. Stenzler.
Gobh. — Gobhila’s Grzhya-sfitra, in the Bibl. Ind.
M.— Manava Dharmasd4stra, Calcutta edition, with the Commentary of Kulldka.
Nand. — Nandapamdita, the commentator of the Vishzu-sftra.
Par. — Paraskara’s Grzhya-sftra, ed. Stenzler.
Sankh. — Sankhayana’s Grzhya-stra, ed. Oldenberg, in the fifteenth volume of the Indische Studien.
Y.— YAgtiavalkya’s DharmasAstra, ed. Stenzler.
Apast. and Gaut. refer also to Dr. Biiler’s translation of these two works in the second volume of the Sacred Books of the East.
INTRODUCTION.
Sankh. — Sankhayana’s Grzhya-stra, ed. Oldenberg, in the fifteenth volume of the Indische Studien.
Y.— YAgtiavalkya’s DharmasAstra, ed. Stenzler.
Apast. and Gaut. refer also to Dr. Biiler’s translation of these two works in the second volume of the Sacred Books of the East.
INTRODUCTION.
THE Vishzu-smriti or Vaishvava Dharmasastra or Vishzusitra is in the main a collection of ancient aphorisms on the sacred laws of India, and as such it ranks with the other ancient works of this class which have come down to our time’. It may be styled a Dharma-sitra, though this ancient title of the Satra works on law has been preserved in the MSS. of those Smritis only, which have been handed down, like the Dharma-sdtras of Apastamba, Baudh4yana, and Hirazyakesin, as parts of the respective Kalpasitras, to which they belong. The size of the Vishzusitra, and the great variety of the subjects treated in it, would suffice to entitle it to a conspicuous place among the five or six existing Dharma-sitras; but it possesses a peculiar claim to interest, which is founded on its close connection with one of the oldest Vedic schools, the Kazfas, on the one hand, and with the famous code of Manu and some other ancient law-codes, on the other hand. To discuss these two principal points, and some minor points connected with them, as fully as the limits of an introduction admit of, will be the more necessary, because such a discussion can afford the only safe basis for a conjecture not altogether unsupported regarding the time and place of the original composition of this work, and may even tend to throw some new light on the vexed question as to the origin of the code of Manu. Further on I shall have to speak of the numerous interpolations traceable in the Vishzu-sitra, and a few remarks regarding. the materials
1 This was first pointed out by Professor Max Miiller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p.134. His results were confirmed and expanded by the subsequent researches of Dr. Biihler, Introduction to Bombay Digest, I, p. xxii; Indian Antiquary, V, p. 30; Kasmir Report, p. 36.
x VISHNU.
used for this translation, and the principles of interpretation that have been followed in it, may be fitly reserved for the last.
Biihler, Introduction to Bombay Digest, I, p. xxii; Indian Antiquary, V, p. 30; Kasmir Report, p. 36.
x VISHNU.
used for this translation, and the principles of interpretation that have been followed in it, may be fitly reserved for the last.
There is no surer way for ascertaining the particular Vedic school by which an ancient Sanskrit law-book of unknown or uncertain origin was composed, than by examining the quotations from, and analogies with, Vedic works which it contains. Thus the Gautama Dharmasastra might have originated in any one among the divers Gautama XKarazas with which Indian tradition acquaints us. But the comparatively numerous passages which its author has borrowed from the Samhita and from one Brahmavza of the Sdma-veda prove that it must belong to one of those Gautama Karawas who studied the Sdma-veda'. Regarding the code of Yagfiavalkya we learn from tradition that a Vedic teacher of that name was the reputed author of the White Yagur-veda. But this coincidence might be looked upon as casual, if the Yagiiavalkya-smriti did not contain a number of Mantras from that Vedic Samhita, and a number of very striking analogies, in the section on funeral ceremonies particularly, with the Grzhyasiitra of the Vagasaneyins, the Katiya Grzhya-sfitra of Paraskara?. In the case of the Vishvzu-sitra an enquiry of this kind is specially called for, because tradition leaves us entirely in the dark as to its real author. The fiction that the laws promulgated in Chapters II-XCVII were communicated by the god Vishzu to the goddess of the earth, is of course utterly worthless for historical purposes; and all that it can be made to show is that those parts of this work in which it is started or kept up cannot rival the laws themselves in antiquity.
Now as regards, first, the Vedic Mantras and Prattkas (beginnings of Mantras) quoted in this work, it is necessary to leave aside, as being of no moment for the present purpose, 1. very well-known Mantras, or, speaking more
1 See Biihler, Introduction to Gautama (Vol. II of the Sacred Books of the East), pp. xlv-xlviii.
2 Biihler, Introduction to Digest, p. xxxii; Stenzler, on Paraskara’s Grihyasfitra, in the Journal of the German Oriental Society, VII, p. 527 seq.
INTRODUCTION. x1
II of the Sacred Books of the East), pp. xlv-xlviii.
2 Biihler, Introduction to Digest, p. xxxii; Stenzler, on Paraskara’s Grihyasfitra, in the Journal of the German Oriental Society, VII, p. 527 seq.
INTRODUCTION. x1
precisely, all such Mantras as are frequently quoted in Vedic works of divers Sakh4s; 2. the purificatory texts enumerated under the title of Sarva-veda-pavitraazi in LVI. The latter can afford us no help in determining the particular Sakha to which this work belongs, because they are actually taken, as they profess to be, from all the Vedas indiscriminately, and because nearly the whole of Chapter LVI is found in the Vasish¢ha-smrti as well (see further on), which probably does not belong to the same Veda as this work. Among the former class of Mantras may be included, particularly, the Gayatri, the Purushas(kta, the Aghamarshama, the KishmAazdis, the Vyahritis, the Gyeshta SAmans, the Rudras, the Trizakiketa, the Trisupar#a, the Vaishzava, Sakra, and Barhaspatya Mantras mentioned in XC, 3, and the Mantra quoted in XXVIII, 51 (= Gautama’s ‘Retasya’). Among the twenty-two Mantras quoted in Chapters XLVIII, LXIV, LXV (including repetitions, but excluding the Purushasikta, Gayatri, Aghamarshava) there are also some which may be referred to this class, and the great majority of them occur in more than one Veda at the same time. But it is worthy of note that no less than twelve, besides occurring in at least one other Sakh4, are either actually found in the Samhita of the K4rayantya-kathas, the K4thaka' (or Karaka-sakh4?), or stated to belong to it in the Commentary, while one is found in the K4tsaka alone, a second in the Atharva-veda alone, a third in the Taittiriya Brahmavza alone, and a fourth does not occur in any Vedic work hitherto known*. <A far greater number of Mantras occurs in Chapters XXI, LXVII, LXXIII, LXXIV, LXXXVI, which treat of daily oblations, Srdddhas, and the ceremony of setting a bull at liberty. Of all these Mantras, which,—including the Purushasikta and other such well-known Mantras as well as the short invocations addressed to Soma, Agni, and other deities, but excluding the invocations addressed to Vishzu in the spurious Sftra, LXVII, 2,—are more than a. hundred in number, no more than forty or so are found in Vedic xii VISHNU.
1 In speaking of this work I always refer to the Berlin MS,
2 XLVIII, 10. Cf., however, Vagas. Samh. IV, 12.
hundred in number, no more than forty or so are found in Vedic
1 In speaking of this work I always refer to the Berlin MS, 2 XLVIII, 10. Cf., however, Vagas. Samh. IV, 12.
xii VISHNU.
works hitherto printed, and in the law-books of Manu, Yagiiavalkya, and others; but nearly all are quoted, exactly in the same order as in this work, in the Aarayaniya-kathaka Grihya-sitra, while some of them have been traced in the Ka¢/aka as well. And what is even more important, the Ka¢saka Grzhya does not contain those Mantras alone, but nearly all the Sdtras in which they occur; and it may be stated therefore, secondly, that the Vishzu-sitra has four long sections, viz. Chapter LXXIII, and Chapters XXI, LXVII, LXXXVI, excepting the final parts, in common with that work, while the substance of Chapter LX XIV may also be traced in it. The agreement between both works is very close, and where they differ it is generally due to false readings or to enlargements on the part of the Vishzu-sitra. However, there are a few cases, in which the version of the latter work is evidently more genuine than that of the former, and it follows, therefore, that the author of the Vishzusitra cannot have borrowed his rules for the performance of Sraddhas &c. from the Kathaka Grzhya-sitra, but that both must have drawn from a common source, i. e. no doubt from the traditions current in the Kazha school, to which this work is indebted for so many of its Mantras as well. For these reasons! I fully concur in the view advanced by Dr. Biihler, that the bulk of the so-called Vishvu-smr‘ti is really the ancient Dharma-sitra of the K4rayamiyakAthaka SAkha of the Black Yagur-veda. It ranks, like other Dharma-sitras, with the Grzhya and Srauta-sitras of its school; the latter of which, though apparently lost now, is distinctly referred to in the Gvzhya-sitra in several places, and must have been in existence at the time when the Commentaries on Katydyana’s Srauta-sitras were composed, in which it is frequently quoted by the name
' For details I may refer the reader to my German paper, Das Dharmasitra des Vishau und das Katsakagrihyasfitra, in the Transactions of the Royal Bavarian Academy of Science for 1879, where the sections corresponding in both works have been printed in parallel columns, the texts from the Kathaka Grihya-sitra having been prepared from two of the MSS. of Devapala’s Commentary discovered by Dr. Biihler (Kasmir Report, Nos. 11, 12), one in Devanagari, and the other in Sarada characters.
INTRODUCTION. Xxili
of Devapala’s Commentary discovered by Dr. Biihler (Kasmir Report, Nos. 11, 12), one in Devanagari, and the other in Sarada characters.
INTRODUCTION. Xxili
of Kazha-siitra on divers questions concerning Srauta offerings, and at the time, when the Kasmfrian Devapala wrote his Commentary on the Kazkaka Grthya-s(tra, which was, according to the Kasmirian tradition, as explored by Dr. Biihler, before the conquest of Kasmir by the Mahommedans. Devapala, in the Introduction to his work, refers to ‘thirty-nine Adhy4yas treating of the Vaitanika (= Srauta) ceremonies,’ by which the Grihya-sitra was preceded, from which statement it may be inferred that the KA4thaka Srauta-sOtras must have been a very voluminous work indeed, as the Grthya-sitra, which is at least equal if not superior in extent to other works of the same class, forms but one Adhydya, the fortieth, of the whole Kalpas(itra, which, according to Devapala, was composed by one author. It does not seem likely that the Vishzu-sitra was composed by the same man, or that it ever formed part of the Kashaka Kalpa-sitra, as the Dharma-satras of Baudhayana, Apastamba, and Hirayakesin form part of the Kalpasdtras of the respective schools to which they belong. If that were the case, it would agree with the Gvzhya-sftra on all those points which are treated in both works, such as e.g. the terms for the performance of the Samskaras or sacraments, the rules for a student and for a SnAdtaka, the enumeration and definition of the Kvzkkfras or ‘hard penances,’ the forms of marriage, &c. Now though the two works have on those subjects a number of such rules in common as occur in other works also, they disagree for the most part in the choice of expressions, and on a few points lay down exactly opposite rules, such as the Vishzusitra (XXVIII, 28) giving permission to a student to ascend his spiritual teacher’s carriage after him, whereas the other work prescribes, that he shall do so on no account. Moreover, if both works had been destined from the first to supplement one another, they would, instead of having several entire sections in common, exhibit such crossreferences as are found e.g. between the Apastamba Grihya and Dharma-sitras}; though the absence of such
1 Biihler, Introduction to Apastamba, Sacred Books, II, pp. xi-xiv.
XIV VISHNU.
between the Apastamba Grihya and Dharma-sitras}; though the absence of such
1 Biihler, Introduction to Apastamba, Sacred Books, II, pp. xi-xiv.
XIV VISHNU.
references might be explained, in the case of the Vishzustra, by the activity of those who brought it into its present shape, and who seem to have carefully removed all such references to other works as the original Dharmasitra may have contained. Whatever the precise nature of the relations between this work and the other Satra works of the KArdyastya-ka¢aka school may have been, there is no reason for assigning to it a later date than to the KAazhaka Srauta and Grzhya-sitras, with the latter of which it has so much in common, and it may therefore claim a considerable antiquity, especially if it is assumed, with Dr. Biihler, that the beginning of the Sftra period differed for each Veda. The Veda of the Ka¢has, the K4zhaka, is not separated from the Sftra literature of this school by an intermediate Brahmawa stage; yet its high antiquity is testified by several of the most eminent grammarians of India from Yaska down to Kaiyata'. Thus the Kathaka is the only existing work of its kind, which is quoted by the former grammarian (Nirukta X, 5; another clear quotation from the Kast#aka, XXVII, 9, though not by name, may be found, Nirukta III, 4), and the latter places the Ka/has at the head of all Vedic schools, while Patangali, the author of the Mah4bhAshya, assigns to the ancient sage Ka/ha, the reputed founder of the Katha or Kathaka school of the Black Yagur-veda, the dignified position of an immediate pupil of Vaisamp4yana, the fountain-head of all schools of the older or Black Yagur-veda, and mentions, in accordance with a similar statement preserved in the Ramayana (II, 32, 18, 19 ed. Schlegel), that in his own time the ‘ Kalapaka and the KAshaka’ were ‘ proclaimed in every village?.’ The priority of the Kazhas before all other existing schools of the Yagur-veda may be deduced from the statements of the Karazavyfha', which work assigns to them one of the first places among the divers branches of
1 See Weber, Indische Studien XIII, p. 437 seq.
2 Mahdbhishya, Benares edition, IV, fols. 82 b, 75 b.
3 See Weber, Ind. Stud. III, p. 256 seq.; Max Miiller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 369. I have consulted, besides, two Munich MSS. of the Karanavyiha (cod. Haug 45).
INTRODUCTION. XV
437 seq.
2 Mahdbhishya, Benares edition, IV, fols. 82 b, 75 b.
3 See Weber, Ind. Stud. III, p. 256 seq.; Max Miiller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 369. I have consulted, besides, two Munich MSS. of the Karanavyiha (cod. Haug 45).
INTRODUCTION. XV
the Karakas, whom it places at the head of all schools of the Yagur-veda. Another argument in favour of the high antiquity of the Kathas may be derived from their geographical position. Though the statements of the Mahaébhashya and Ramayaza regarding the wide-spread and influential position of the Katkas in ancient times are borne out by the fact that the KarazavyHha mentions three subdivisions of the Kafhas, viz. the Ka¢as proper, the Prakya Kathas, and the Kapish¢sala Kathas, to which the K4rayaniyas may be added as a fourth, and by the seeming identity of their name with the name of the Ka@aio: in the Paiigdb on the one hand, and with the first part of the name of the peninsula of Kattivar on the other hand, it seems very likely nevertheless that the original home of the Ka/¢has was situated in the north-west, i.e. in those regions where the earliest parts of the Vedas were composed. Not only the Ka@aio, but the KayPic@o0An as well, who have been identified with the Kapish¢/ala Ka/has*, are mentioned by Greek writers as a nation living in the Patgab ; and while the Pra#ya Ka/sas are shown by their name (‘Eastern Ka¢has’) to have lived to the east of the two other branches of the Ka/fas, it is a significant ‘fact that adherents of the K4rdyaziya-kazhaka school survive nowhere but in Kasmir, where all Brahmazas perform their domestic rites according to the rules laid down in the Grthya-stitra of this school®. Kasmir is moreover the country where nearly all the yet existing works of the K4azhkaka school have turned up, including the Berlin MS. of the Ka¢aka, which was probably written by a Kasmirian*. It is true that some of the geographical and historical data contained in that work, especially the way in which it mentions the Paff#alas, whose ancient name, as shown by the Satapatha Brahmama (XIII, 5, 4, 7) and Rig-
1 See Weber, Uber das Ramayana, p.g; Ind. Stud. I, p. 189 seq.; III, p 469 seq.; XIII, pp. 375, 439; Ind. Litteraturgeschichte, pp. 99, 332; Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, p. 102 seq.
? See, however, Max Miiller, Hist. Anc, Sansk. Lit., p. 333-
5 Biihler, Kasmir Report, p. 20 seq.
‘ This was pointed out to me by Dr. Biihler.
Xvi VISHNU.
Stud. I, p. 189 seq.; III, p 469 seq.; XIII, pp. 375, 439; Ind. Litteraturgeschichte, pp. 99, 332; Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, p. 102 seq.
? See, however, Max Miiller, Hist. Anc, Sansk. Lit., p. 333-
5 Biihler, Kasmir Report, p. 20 seq.
‘ This was pointed out to me by Dr. Biihler.
Xvi VISHNU.
veda (VIII, 20, 24; VIII, 22, 12), was Krivi, take us far off from the north-west, the earliest seat of Aryan civilization, into the country of the Kuru-Pafi#dlas in Hindostan proper. But it must be borne in mind that the K4¢/aka, if it may be identified with the ‘ Karaka-sékha,’ must have been the Veda of all the Xarakas except perhaps the Maitrdyamtyas and KapishéZalas, and may have been altered and enlarged, after the Ka¢#as and Karakas had spread themselves across Hindostén, The Sitras of a SAkha which appears to have sprung up near the primitive home of Aryan civilization in India, which was probably the original home of the Kazsas at the same time, may be far older than those of mere Stra schools of the Black Yagur-veda, which have sprung up, like the Apastamba school, in South India, i.e. far older than the fourth or fifth century B.C.
But sufficient space has been assigned to these attempts at fixing the age of the K4¢/aka-sfitras which, besides remaining only too uncertain in themselves, can apply with their full force to those parts of the Vishzu-sdtra only, which have been traced in the KatZaka Grihya-sitra. It will be seen afterwards that even these sections, however closely connected with the sacred literature of the Kathas, have been tampered with in several places, and it might be argued, therefore, that the whole remainder of the Vishzusitra, to which the K4¢saka literature offers no parallel, may be a subsequent addition. But the antiquity of the great majority of its laws can be proved by independent arguments, which are furnished by a comparison of the Vishzu-sitra with other works of the same class, whose antiquity is not doubted.
In the foot-notes to my translation I have endeavoured to give as complete references as possible to the analogous passages in the Smritis of Manu, YAgiiavalkya, Apastamba, and Gautama, and in the four Gvzhya-sitras hitherto printed. A large number of analogous passages might have been traced in the Dharma-sitras of VAsish¢/a ?
' See Biihler, Introd. to Apastamba, p. xliii. 2 See the Benares edition (1878), which is accompanied with a Commentary ’ by Krishnapandita Dharmadhikarin, I should have given references to this
INTRODUCTION. XVii
' See Biihler, Introd. to Apastamba, p. xliii. 2 See the Benares edition (1878), which is accompanied with a Commentary ’ by Krishnapandita Dharmadhikarin, I should have given references to this
INTRODUCTION. XVii
and Baudh4yana as well, not to mention Hirazyakesin’s Dharma-sitra, which, according to Dr. Biihler, is nearly identical with the Dharma-sitra of Apastamba. Two facts may be established at once by glancing at these analogies, viz. the close agreement of this work with the other Sdtra works in point of form, and with all the above-mentioned works in point of contents. As regards the first point, the Sdtras or prose rules of which the bulk of the Vishzu-sdtra is composed, show throughout that characteristic laconism of the Satra style, which renders it impossible in many cases to make out the real meaning of a Sitra without the help of a Commentary; and in the choice of terms they agree as closely as possible with the other ancient law-books, and in some cases with the Grzhya-sftras as well. Numerous verses, generally in the Sloka metre, and occasionally designed as ‘Gath4s,’ are added at the end of most chapters, and interspersed between the Sfitras in some; but in this particular also the Vish#u-sitra agrees with at least one other Dharma-sitra, the Vasish¢Za-smriti, and it contains in its law part, like the latter work, a number of verses in the ancient Trishtubh metre’. Four of these Trishzubhs are found in the VAsisht#a-smrzti, and three in Y4ska’s Nirukta as well, and the majority of the Slokas has been traced in the former work and the other above-mentioned law-books, and in other Smritis. In point of contents the great majority both of the metrical and prose rules of the Vishzu-sitra agrees with one, or some, or all of the works named above. The Grthya-sitras, excepting the Kathaka Grihya-s(itra, naturally offer a far smaller number of analogies with it than the Smritis, still they exhibit several rules, in the Sndtaka-dharmas and otherwise, that have not been traced in any other Smr?ti except the work here translated. Among the Smr‘tis again, each single one may be seen work, the first complete and reliable edition of the Vasisht#a-smriti, in the footnotes to my translation, but for the fact that it did not come into my hands till the former had gone to the press. For Baudhayana I have consulted a Munich MS. containing the text only of his Sfitras (cod. Haug 163).
1 XIX, 23, 24; XXIII, 61; XXIX, 9,10; XXX, 47 (see Nirukta II, 4; . Vasishtha II, 8-10) ; LVI, 27 (see Vasishvha XXVIII, 15); LIX, 30; LXXII, 73 LXXXVI, 16.
7] b
XViil VISHNU.
For Baudhayana I have consulted a Munich MS. containing the text only of his Sfitras (cod. Haug 163).
1 XIX, 23, 24; XXIII, 61; XXIX, 9,10; XXX, 47 (see Nirukta II, 4; . Vasishtha II, 8-10) ; LVI, 27 (see Vasishvha XXVIII, 15); LIX, 30; LXXII, 73 LXXXVI, 16.
7] b
XViil VISHNU.
from the references to contain a number of such rules, as are only met with in this work, which is a very important fact because, if the laws of the Vishvu-sitra were found either in all other Smr‘tis, or in one of them only, its author might be suspected of having borrowed them from one of those works. As it is, meeting with analogous passages now in one work, and then in another, one cannot but suppose that the author of this work has everywhere drawn from the same source as the other Satrak4ras, viz. from ancient traditions that were common to all Vedic schools.
There are, moreover, a number of cases in which this work, instead of having borrowed from other works of the same class, can be shown to have been, directly or indirectly, the source from which they drew, and this fact constitutes a third reason in favour of the high antiquity of its laws. The clearest case of this kind is furnished by the VAsish¢hasmriti, with which this work has two entire chapters in common, which are not found elsewhere. I subjoin in a note the text of VasishtAa XXVIII, 10-15, with an asterisk to those words which contain palpable mistakes (not including blunders in point of metre), for comparison with Chapter LVI of this work in the Calcutta edition, which is exceptionally correct in this chapter and in Chapter LXXXVII, which latter corresponds to Vasishtha XXVIII, 18-221. In both
? atacufaatia TeTqEAT: WOT | Vat why Sar yaa Ars TUT nson writ wraara Ttrarfefate (7) @ naan *afrasm: wearer: amnifa areata (7) t *aneeerfa arnt rag cat WaT waa Yerad word & war Faaafa 4 after (?) areata aay He eETaT wagn waafgaraaigciaggaa aeraay | TA ATIT T TyS (?) @ arvat naan atenrsagiatta Tent 4 Waat ata eT!
INTRODUCTION. xix
INTRODUCTION. xix
chapters Vishvu has mainly prose Sfitras and throughout a perfectly correct text, whereas VAsish¢Za has bad Slokas which, supported as they are by the Commentary or by the metre or by both, can only be accounted for by carelessness or clerical mistakes in some cases, and by a clumsy versification of the original prose version preserved in this work in others. Another chapter of the Vishzu-sdtra, the fortyeighth, nowhere meets with a parallel except in the third Prasna of the Dharma-sdtra of Baudhdyana, where it recurs almost word for word. An examination of the various readings in both works shows that in some of the Slokas Baudhayana has better readings, while in one or two others the readings of Vishvu seem preferable, though the unsatisfactory condition of the MS. consulted renders it unsafe to pronounce a definitive judgment on the character of Baudhayana’s readings. At all events he has a few Vedic Mantras more than Vishzu, which however seem to be very well-known Mantras and are quoted by their Pratikas only. But he omits the two important Sftras 9 and 10 of Vishzu, the latter of which contains a Mantra quoted at full, which, although corrupted (see Vagas. Samh. IV, 12) and hardly intelligible, is truly Vedic in point of language; and he adds on his part a clause at the end of the whole chapter!, which inculcates the worship of Gazesa or Siva or both, and would be quite sufficient in itself to cast a doubt on the genuineness and originality of his version. It is far from improbable that both V4sishzka and Baudhayana may have borrowed fa * amifat (= sftarfa Vishnu LVI, 21) Baten wy wifrercd ert weber nan
Vishnu LVI, 13,16, the best MSS. read JRAAR UTA aM Wifes wT 14% but the Calc. ed. and one London MS. have yeqat \ ATA t like Vasishtha. Of Vishnu LXXXVII the latter has an abridged version, which contains the faulty readings PUTA TTT (‘the skin of a black antelope,’ Comm.) and water (as an epithet of the earth = Agta Vishnu LXXXVH, 9).
Of Vishnu LXXXVII the latter has an abridged version, which contains the faulty readings PUTA TTT (‘the skin of a black antelope,’ Comm.) and water (as an epithet of the earth = Agta Vishnu LXXXVH, 9).
the sections referred to directly from an old recension of this work, as Baudhayana has borrowed another chapter of his work from Gautama, while Vasish¢/a in his turn has borrowed the same chapter from Baudhdyana!. It may be added in confirmation of this view, that as far as Vasishtha is concerned, his work is the only Smriti, as far as I know, which contains a quotation from the ‘Kathaka’ (in XXIX, 18). The Dharma-stitras of Apastamba and Gautama have nowhere a large number of consecutive Sdtras in common with the Vishzu-sitra, but it is curious to note that the rule, which the latter (X, 45) quotes as the opinion of ‘some’ (eke), that a non-Brahmanical finder of a treasure, who announces his find to the king, shall obtain one-sixth of the value, is found in no other law-book except in this, which states (III, 61) that a Stdra shall divide a treasuretrove into twelve parts, two of which he may keep for himself. Of the metrical law-books, one, the YAgfiavalkyasmrzti, has been shown by Professor Max Miiller? to have borrowed the whole anatomical section (III, 84-104), including the simile of the soul which dwells in the heart like a lamp (III, 109, 111, 201), from this work (XCVI, 43-96 ; XCVII, 9); and it has been pointed out by the same scholar, that the verse in which the author of the former work speaks of the Arazyaka and of the Yoga-sdstra as of his own works (III, 110) does not occur in the Vishzu-sitra, and must have been added by the versificator, who brought the Yagfiavalkya-smviti into its present metrical form. Several other Slokas in Y4gfiavalkya’s description of the human body (III, 99, 105-108), and nearly the whole section on Yoga (Y. III, 111-203, excepting those Slokas, the substance of which is found in this work and in the code of Manu, viz. 131-140, 177-182, 190, 198-201) may be traced to the same source, as may be also the omission of Vishzu’s enumeration of the ‘six limbs’ (XCVI, 90) in the Yagfiavalkya-smrvti, and probably all the minor points on which it differs from this work. Generally speaking, those
? See Biihler, Introduction to Gautama, pp. l-liv. 3 Hist. Anc. Sansk, Lit., p. 331.
SS
INTRODUCTION. Xxi
Generally speaking, those
? See Biihler, Introduction to Gautama, pp. l-liv. 3 Hist. Anc. Sansk, Lit., p. 331.
SS
INTRODUCTION. Xxi
passages which have been justly noticed as marking the comparatively late period in which that law-book must have been composed?: such as the allusions to the astrology and astronomy of the Greeks (Y. I, 80, 295), which render it necessary to refer the metrical redaction of the YAgfiavalkya-smriti to a later time than the second century A. D.; the whole passage on the worship of Gamesa and of the planets (I, 270-307), in which, moreover, a heterodox sect is mentioned, that has been identified with the Buddhists; the philosophical doctrines propounded in I, 349, 350; the injunctions regarding the foundation and endowment of monasteries (II, 185 seq.)—all these passages have no parallel in this work, while it is not overstating the case to say that nearly all the other subjects mentioned in the Yagiiavalkya-smriti are treated in a similar way, and very often in the same terms, in the Vishzu-sitra as well. Some of those rules, in which the posteriority of the YAgiiavalkya-smvzti to other law-books exhibits itself, do occur in the Vishvu-sQtra, but without the same marks of modern age. Thus the former has two Slokas concerning the punishment of forgery (II, 240, 241), in which coined money is referred to by the term nazaka; the Vish#u-sftra has the identical rule (V, 122, 123; cf. V, 9), but the word nazaka does not occur in it. Y4giiavalkya, in speaking of the number of wives which a member of the three higher castes may marry (I, 57),advocates the Puritan view, that no Stdra wife must be among these ; this work has analogous rules (XXIV, 1-4), in which, however, such marriages are expressly allowed. The comparative priority of all those Sftras of Vishzu, to which similar Slokas of Yagfiavalkya correspond, appears probable on general grounds, which are furnished by the course of development in this as in other branches of Indian literature ; and to this it may be added,
1 See Stenzler, in the Preface to his edition of Yagtiavalkya ; Jacobi, on Indian Chronology, in the Journal of the German Oriental Society, XXX, 305 seq., &c. Vishnu’s rules (III, 82) concerning the wording &c. of royal grants, which agree with the rules of Yaghavalkya and other authors, must be allowed a considerable antiquity, as the very oldest grants found in South India conform io those rules. See Burnell, South Indian Paleography, 2nd ed., p. 95.
ao —_— ‘
XXil VISHNU.
as far as the civil and criminal laws are concerned, that the former enumerates them quite promiscuously, just like the other Dharma-sdtras, with which he agrees besides in separating the law of inheritance from the body of the laws, whereas Yagiiavalkya enumerates all the laws in the order of the eighteen ‘titles of law’ of Manu and the more recent law-books, though he does not mention the titles of law by name.
However much the Vishwu-sitra may have in common with the Yagfiavalkya-smvtti, there is no other law-book with which it agrees so closely as with the code of Manu. This fact may be established by a mere glance at the references in the foot-notes to this translation, in which Manu makes his appearance far more frequently and constantly than any other author, and the case becomes the stronger, the more the nature of these analogies is inquired into. Of Slokas alone Vishzu has upwards of 160 in common with Manu, and in a far greater number of cases still his Sfitras agree nearly word for word with the corresponding rules of Manu. The latter also, though he concurs in a very great number of points with the other law authors as well, agrees with none of them so thoroughly as with Vishvu. All the Smritis of Apastamba, Baudhayana, Vasishz#a, Yagiiavalkya, and Narada contain, according to an approximate calculation, no more than about 130 Slokas, that are found in the code of Manu as well. The latter author and Vishzu differ of course on a great many minor points, and an exhaustive discussion of this subject would fill a treatise; I must therefore confine myself to notice some of those differences, which are particularly important for deciding the relative priority of the one work before the other. Ina number of Slokas Manu’s readings are decidedly older and better than Vishzu’s. Thus the latter (XXX, 7) compares the three ‘ Atigurus’ to the ‘three gods,’ i.e. to the post-Vedic Trimarti of ‘Brahman, Vishzu, and Siva,’ as the commentator expressly states, whereas Manu in an analogous Sloka (II, 230) refers to the ‘three orders’ instead. At the end of the section on inheritance (XVIII, 44) Vishzu mentions among other
INTRODUCTION. XXiil
to the post-Vedic Trimarti of ‘Brahman, Vishzu, and Siva,’ as the commentator expressly states, whereas Manu in an analogous Sloka (II, 230) refers to the ‘three orders’ instead. At the end of the section on inheritance (XVIII, 44) Vishzu mentions among other
INTRODUCTION. XXiil
indivisible objects ‘a book,’ pustakam; Manu (IX, 219) has the same Sloka, but for pustakam he reads prakakshate. Now pustaka is a modern word}, and Varahamihira, who lived in the sixth century A.D., appears to be the first author, with a known date, by whom it is used. It occurs again, Vishzu-sitra XXIII, 56 (prokshazena ka pustakam), and here also Manu (V,122) has a different reading (punakpakena mrvinmayam). The only difference between Vishau-sitra XXII, 93 and Manu V, 110 consists in the use of singular forms (te, svizu) in the former work, and of plural forms (vah, syimuta) in the latter. Now there are a great many other Smritis besides the Manu-smriti, such as e.g. the Yagfiavalkya and Pardsara Smritis, in which the fiction is kept up, that the laws contained in them are promulgated to an assembly of Rishis; but there are very few Smritis of the least notoriety or importance besides the Vishzu-sfitra, in which they are proclaimed to a single person. Other instances in which Manu’s readings appear preferable to Vishzu’s may be found, LI, 60 (pretya eha &a nishkritim) = Manu V, 38 (pretya ganmani ganmani) ; LI, 64 (iti kathafiZana)=M.V, 41 (ity abravinmanut) ; LI, 76 (tasya) = M.V, 53 (tayok) ; LIV, 27 (brahmanyat) = M. XI, 193 (brahmav4); LVII, 11 (purastad anufoditam) =M. IV, 248; VAsisht#a XIV, 16; Apastamba I, 6, 19, 14 (purastad aprakoditam); LXVII, 45 (s4yampratas tvatithaye)= M. III, 99 (sampraptaya tvatithaye), &c. But these instances do not prove much, as all the passages in question may have been tampered with by the Vishzuitic editor, and as in some other cases the version of Vishzu seems preferable. Thus ‘practised by the virtuous’ (sddhubhiska nishevitam, LX XI, go) is a very common epithet of ‘akara, and reads better than Manu’s nibaddham sveshu karmasu(IV, 155); and krikkhratikrikkhram (LIV, 30) seems preferable to Baudhayana’s and Manu’s krikkhratikrikkhrau (XI, 209). What is more important, the Vishzu-sitra does not only contain a number of verses in the ancient Trish¢ubh metre, whereas Manu has none, but it shows those identical three Trishtubhs of VAsish¢#a and YAska, which Dr. Biihler
1 See Max Miiller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 512.
XXIV VISHNU.
What is more important, the Vishzu-sitra does not only contain a number of verses in the ancient Trish¢ubh metre, whereas Manu has none, but it shows those identical three Trishtubhs of VAsish¢#a and YAska, which Dr. Biihler
1 See Max Miiller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 512.
XXIV VISHNU.
has proved to have been converted into Anush¢ubh Slokas by Manu (II, 114, 115, 144)!; and Manu seems to have taken the substance of his three Slokas from this work more immediately, because both he (II, 144) and Vishzu (XXX, 47) have the reading 4vrznoti for 4tyznatti, which truly Vedic form is employed both by VAsish¢/a and Yaska. The relative antiquity of Vishzu’s prose rules, as compared to the numerous corresponding Slokas of Manu, may be proved by arguments precisely similar to those which I have adduced above in speaking of the Yagnavalkya-smr'ti. As regards those points in the code of Manu, which are usually considered as marks of the comparatively late date of its composition, it will suffice to mention, that the Vishzustitra nowhere refers to South Indian nations such as the Dravidas and Andhras, or to the Yavanas; that it shows no distinct traces of an acquaintance with the tenets of any other school of philosophy except the Yoga and Sankhya systems; that it does not mention female ascetics disparagingly, and in particular does not contain Manu’s rule (VIII, 363) regarding the comparatively light punishment to be inflicted for violation of (Buddhist and other) female ascetics ; and that it does not inveigh (see XV, 3), like Manu (IX, 64-68), against the custom of Niyoga or appointment of a widow to raise offspring to her deceased husband. It is true, on the other hand, that in many cases Vishzu’s rules have a less archaic character than the corresponding precepts of Manu, not only in the Slokas, but in the Sdtra part as well. Thus written documents and ordeals are barely mentioned in the code of Manu (VIII, 114, 115, 168; IX, 232); Vishzu on the other hand, besides referring in divers places to royal grants and edicts, to written receipts and other private documents, and to books, devotes to writings (lekhya) an entire chapter, in which he makes mention of the caste of Kayasthas, ‘scribes,’ and he lays down elaborate rules for the performance of five species of ordeals, to which recourse should be had, according to him, in all suits of some importance. But in nearly all such cases the antiquity of Vishzu’s
1 Introduction to Bombay Digest, I, p. xxviii seq.
INTRODUCTION. XXV
But in nearly all such cases the antiquity of Vishzu’s
1 Introduction to Bombay Digest, I, p. xxviii seq.
INTRODUCTION. XXV
rules is warranted to a certain extent by corresponding rules occurring in the Smrttis of Yagiiavalkya and Narada ; and the evidence for the modifications and entire transformations, which the code of Manu must have undergone in a number of successive periods, is so abundant, that the archaic character of many of its rules cannot be considered to constitute a sufficient proof of the priority of the whole code before other codes which contain some rules of a comparatively modern character. To this it must be added that the Nérada-smriti, though taken as a whole it is decidedly posterior to the code of Manu], is designated by tradition as an epitome from another and more bulky recension of the code of Manu than the one which we now possess ; and if this statement may be credited, which is indeed rather doubtful, the very particular resemblance between both works in the law of evidence and in the rules regarding property (see LVIII) can only tend to corroborate the assumption that the Vishzu-sitra and the Manu-smriti must have been closely connected from the first.
This view is capable of further confirmation still by a different set of arguments. The so-called code of Manu is universally assumed now to be an improved metrical edition of the ancient Dharma-satra of the (Maitrayaniya-) Manavas, a school studying the Black Yagur-veda ; and it has been shown above that the ancient stock of the Vishvusfitra, in which all the parts hitherto discussed may be included, represents in the main the Dharma-sftra of the K4rayantya-ka¢has, another school studying the Black Yagur-veda. Now these two schools do not only belong both to that Veda, but to the same branch of it, as may be seen from the Karazavytha, which work classes both the Kathas and XK 4rayaztyas on the one hand, and the Manavas
1 See the evidence collected in the Preface to ‘my Institutes of Narada (London, 1876), to which the important fact may be added that Narada uses the word dinara, the Roman denarius. It occurs in a large fragment discovered by Dr. Biihler of a more bulky and apparently older recension of that work than the one which I have translated; and I may be allowed to mention, incidentally, that this discovery has caused me to abandon my design of publishing the Sanskrit text of the shorter recension, as it may be hoped that the whole text of the original work will soon come to light.
XXvi VISHNU.
XXvi VISHNU.
together with the six or five other sections of the Maitrayaniyas on the other hand, as subdivisions of the Karaka Sakha of the Black Yagur-veda. What is more, there exists a thorough-going parallelism between the literature of those two schools, as far as it is known. To begin with their respective Samhitas, it has been shown by L. Schréder? that the Maitrayawi Samhita has more in common with the Kathaka, the Samhita of the Ka//as, than with any other Veda. As the Ka/fas are constantly named, in the Mahabhdshya and other old works, by the side of the Kalapas, whereas the name of the Maitrayaziyas does not occur in any Sanskrit work of uncontested antiquity, it has been suggested by the same scholar that the Maitrayaztyas may be the K4lapas of old, and may not have assumed the former name till Buddhism began to prevail in India. However this may be, the principal Sftra works of both schools stand in a similar relation to one another as their Samhitas. Some of those Mantras, which have been stated above to be common to the Vishzu-sitra and Kathaka Grihya only, and to occur in no other Vedic work hitherto printed, have been traced in the Manava Srauta-sitra, in the chapter on Pinda-pitriyagiia (I, 2 of the section on Praksoma)*, and the conclusion is, that if the Srauta-sitra of the K4zsaka school were still in existence, it would be found to exhibit a far greater number of analogies with the Srauta-sfitra of the Manavas. The Grzhya-sdtra of this school ® agrees with the K4¢#aka Grvihya-sitra even more closely than the latter agrees with the Vishzu-sdtra, as both works have not only several entire chapters in common (the chapter on the Vaisvadeva sacrifice among others, which is found in the Vishzu-sdtra also), but concur everywhere in the arrangement of the subject-matter and in the choice of expressions and Mantras. The Brahmawa stage of Vedic literature is not represented by a separate work in either of the two schools, but a further argument in
1 On the Maitrayani Samhita, Journal of the German Oriental Society, XXXITI, 177 seq.
2 Cod. Haug 53 of the Munich Library.
3 Codd. Haug 55 and 56 of the Munich Library. For details, see my German paper above referred to.
INTRODUCTION. XXVil
2 Cod. Haug 53 of the Munich Library.
3 Codd. Haug 55 and 56 of the Munich Library. For details, see my German paper above referred to.
INTRODUCTION. XXVil
favour of their alleged historical connection may be derived from their respective geographical position. If it has been rightly conjectured above, that the original seats of the Kathas were in the north-west, whence they spread themselves over Hindost4n, the Maitrayantyas, though now surviving nowhere except in some villages ‘near the Satpuda mountain, which is included in the Vindhyas?,’ must have been anciently their neighbours, as the territory occupied by them extended ‘from the Mayfra mountain into Gugarat,’ and reached ‘as far as the north-western country’ (vayavyadesa)?. Considering all this evidence regarding the original connection between the Kazkas and MAnavas, it may be said without exaggeration, that it would be far more surprising to find no traces of resemblance between their respective Dharma-sfitras, such as we possess them, than to find, as is actually the case, the contrary; and it may be argued, vice versa, that the supposed connection of the two works with the Vedic schools of the Ka¢#as and Manavas? respectively, is confirmed by the kinship existing between these two schools. ;
In turning now from the ancient parts of the Vishzusitra to its more recent ingredients, I may again begin by quoting Professor Max Miiller’s remarks on this work, which contain the statement, that it is ‘enlarged by modern additions written in Slokas*.’ After him, Dr. Biihler pointed out® that the whole work appears to have been recast by an adherent of Vishzu, and that the final and introductory chapters in particular are shown by their very style to have been composed by another author than the body of the
1 Bhad Dajf, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, X, 40.
? See a passage from the Maharnava, as quoted by Dr. Biihler, Introduction to Apastamba, p. xxx seq. The same readings are found in a Munich MS. of the Karanavy(ha-vyakhya (cod. Haug 45). With the above somewhat unclear statement Manu’s definition of the limits of Brahmfvarta (II, 17) may not unreasonably be compared.
3 The code of Manu has very little in common with the Manava Grihyasftra, both in the Mantras and otherwise. Both Vishnu and Manu agree with the K4thaka in the use of the curious term abhinimrukta or abhinirmukta ; but - the same term is used by Apastamba, Vasish¢ha, and others.
* Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 134. 5 Introduction to Bombay Digest, p. xxii.
XXVill VISHNU.
Both Vishnu and Manu agree with the K4thaka in the use of the curious term abhinimrukta or abhinirmukta ; but - the same term is used by Apastamba, Vasish¢ha, and others.
* Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 134. 5 Introduction to Bombay Digest, p. xxii.
XXVill VISHNU.
work, Ifthe latter remark were in need of further confirmation, it might be urged that the description of Vishzu as ‘ the boar of the sacrifice’ (yagfiavaraha) in the first chapter is bodily taken from the Harivamsa (2226-2237), while most of the epithets given to Vishvu in I, 49-61 and XCVIII, 7-100 may be found in another section of the Mahabhfrata, the so-called Vishzu-sahasrandma. Along with the introductory and final chapters, all those passages generally are distinctly traceable to the activity of the Vishzuitic editor, in which Vishvu (Purusha, Bhagavat, Vasudeva, &c.) is mentioned, or his dialogue with the goddess of the earth carried on, viz. 1; V, 193; XIX, 24; XX, 16-21; XXII, 93; XXIII, 46; XXIV, 35; XLVII, 10; XLIX; LXIV, 28, 29; LXV; LXVI; LXVII, 2; XC, 3-5, 17-23; XCVI, 97, 98; XCVII, 7-21; XCVIII-C. The short invocation addressed to Vishzu in LXVII, 12 is proved to be ancient by its recurrence in the corresponding chapter of the Ka¢#aka Grvzhyasitra,and Chapter LXV contains genuine K4¢aka Mantras transferred to a Vishzuitic ceremony. Chapter LXVI, on the other hand, though it does not refer to Vishzu by name, seems to be connected with the same Vishzuitic rite, and becomes further suspected by the recurrence of several of its rules in the genuine Chapter LX XIX. The contents of Chapter XCVII, in which it is attempted to reconcile some of the main tenets of the Sankhya system, as propounded in the Sankhya-karik4, Sankhya-pravazanabhashya, and other works, with the Vaishvava creed and with the Yoga; the fact that the two Slokas in XCVI (97, 98) and part of the Slokas in XCVII (15-21) have their parallel in similar Slokas of the Bhagavad-gita and of the Bhagavata-pur4za; the terms Mahatpati, Kapila, and Sankhy4é4rya, used as epithets of Vishvu (XCVIII, 26, 85, 86); and some other passages in the Vishzuitic chapters seem to favour the supposition that the editor may have been one of those members of the Vishzuitic sect of the Bhagavatas, who were conspicuous for their leaning towards the Sankhya and Yoga systems of philosophy. The arrangement of the Vishzu-sitra in a hundred chapters is no doubt due to the same person, as the Commentary points out that the num-
INTRODUCTION. XXIX
The arrangement of the Vishzu-sitra in a hundred chapters is no doubt due to the same person, as the Commentary points out that the num-
INTRODUCTION. XXIX
ber of the epithets given to Vishzu in XCVIII is precisely equal to the number of chapters into which the laws promulgated by him are divided (II-XCVII); though the number ninety-six is received only by including the introductory and final invocations (KCVIII, 6, 101) among the epithets of Vishvu. It seems quite possible, that some chapters were inserted mainly in order to bring up the whole figure to the round number of a hundred chapters, and it is for this reason chiefly that the majority of the following additions, which show no Vishzuitic tendencies, may also be attributed to the Vishzuitic editor.
1. Most or all of the Slokas added at the end of Chapters XX (22-53) and XLIII (32-45) cannot be genuine; the former on account of their great extent and partial recurrence in the Bhagavad-gita!, Mahabharata, and other works of general note, and because they refer to the self-immolation of widows and to K4la, whom the commentator is probably right in identifying with Vish#u ; the latter on account of their rather extravagant character and decidedly Purdnic style, though the Garuda-pur4ma, in its very long description of the hells, offers no strict parallel to the details given here. The verses in which the Brahmawas and cows are celebrated (XIX, 22, 23; XXIII, 57-61) are also rather extravagant ; however, some of them are Trish¢ubhs, and the verses in XIX are closely connected with the preceding Sdtras, The two final Slokas in LXXXVI (19, 20) may also be suspected as to their genuineness, because they are wanting in the corresponding chapter of the Kacdaka Grzhya-sitra ; and a number of other verses in divers places, because they have no parallel in the Smriti literature, or because they have been traced in comparatively modern works, such as the Bhagavad-gitd, the Pafizatantra, &c. 2. The week of the later Romans and Greeks, and of modern Europe (LXXVIII, 1-7), the self-immolation of widows (XXV, 14; cf. XX, 39), and the Buddhists and Pasupatas (LXIII, 36) are not mentioned in any ancient Sanskrit work. Besides, the passages in question may be easily removed, especially the Siitras referring to the seven days of the week, which
1 Besides the passages quoted in the notes, 50-53 nearly = Bhag.-gita II, 22-25.
XXX VISHNU.
Besides, the passages in question may be easily removed, especially the Siitras referring to the seven days of the week, which
1 Besides the passages quoted in the notes, 50-53 nearly = Bhag.-gita II, 22-25.
XXX VISHNU.
form clearly a subsequent addition to the enumeration of the Nakshatras and Tithis immediately following(LX XVIII, 8-50), and the rule concerning the burning of widows (X XV, 14), which is in direct opposition to the law concerning the widow’s right to inherit (XVII, 4) and to other precepts regarding widows. That the three terms kash4yin, pravragita, malina in LXIII, 36 refer to members of religious orders seems clear, but it may be doubted whether malina denotes the Pasupatas, and even whether kash4yin (cf. pravragita XXXVI, 7) denotes the Buddhists, as dresses dyed with Kash4ya are worn by Brahmanical sects also, and prescribed for students, and for ascetics likewise, by some of the Grihya- and Dharma-sitras. Still the antiquity of the Satra in question can hardly be defended, because the acquaintance of the Vishzuitic editor with the Buddhistic system of faith is proved by two other Sftras (XCVIII, 40, 41), and because the whole subject of good and evil omens is not treated in any other ancient Smviti. On the other hand, such terms as vedaninda and n4stikaté (XX XVII, 4, 31, &c.) recur in most Smrttis, and can hardly be referred to the Buddhists in particular. 3. The Tirthas enumerated in LXXXV, some of which are sacred to Vishzu and Siva, belong to all parts of India, and many of them are situated in the Dekhan, which was certainly not included within the limits of the ‘Ary4varta’ of the ancient Dharma-sitra (LXXXIV, 4). As no other Smrtti contains a list of this kind, the whole chapter may be viewed as a later addition. 4. The ceremonies described in XC are not mentioned in other Smrtis, while some of them are decidedly Vishzuitic, or traceable in modern works; and as all the Sftras in XC hang closely together, this entire chapter seems also to be spurious. 5. The repetitions in the list of articles forbidden to sell (LIV, 18-22); the addition of the two categories of atipatak4ni, ‘crimes in the highest degree,’ and prakirzakam, ‘miscellaneous crimes’ (XX XIII, 3,5; XXXIV; XLII), to Manu’s list of crimes; the frequent references to the Ganges river; and other such passages, which show a modern character, without being traceable in the Smrttis of Yagtiavalkya and Narada, may have been added by the Vish-
INTRODUCTION. xxxi
xxxi nuitic editor from modern Smritis, either for the sake of completeness, or in order to make up the required number of chapters. 6. All the passages hitherto mentioned are such as have no parallel in other ancient Smritis. But the Vishzuitic editor did evidently not confine himself to the introduction of new matter into the ancient Dharmasdtra.. That he did not refrain, occasionally, from altering the original text, has been conjectured above with regard to his readings of some of those Slokas, which are found in the code of Manu as well; and it can be proved quite clearly by comparing his version of the Vvishotsarga ceremony (LXXXVI) with the analogous chapter of the Kathaka Grthya-sitra. In one case (LI, 64; cf. XXIII, 50=M. V, 131) he has replaced the words, which refer the authorship of the Sloka in question to Manu, by an unmeaning term. The superior antiquity of Manu’s reading (V, 41) is vouched for by the recurrence of the same passage in the Grthya-sitra of Sankhayana (II, 16, 1) and in the Vasishthasmriti (IV, 6), and the reference to Manu has no doubt been removed by the Vishnuitic editor, because it would have been out of place in a speech of Vishnu. References to sayings of Manu and other teachers and direct quotations from Vedic works are more or less common in all Dharmasitras, and their entire absence in this work is apparently due to their systematical removal by the editor. On the other hand, the lists of Vedic and other works to be studied or recited may have been enlarged in one or two cases by him or by another interpolator, namely, XXX, 37 (cf.V,191), where the Atharva-veda is mentioned afterthe other Vedas by the name of ‘Atharvaza’ (not Atharvangirasas, as in the code of Manu and most other ancient works), and LXXXIII, 7, where Vyakarama, ‘Grammar,’ i.e. according to the Commentary the grammars of Paini and others, is mentioned as distinct from the Vedangas. The antiquity of the former passage might indeed be defended by the example of Apastamba, who, though referring like this work to the ‘three Vedas’ both separately and collectively, mentions in another place the ‘Atharvaza-veda".’ Besides the above works,
1 See Biihler, Introduction to Apastamba, p. xxiv.
XXXil VISHNU.
xxiv.
XXXil VISHNU.
and those referred to in LVI, the laws of Vishzu name no other work except the Purdmas, Itihdsas, and DharmasaAstras. 7. As the Vishzuitic editor did not scruple to alter the import of a certain number of passages, the modernisation of the language of the whole work, which was probably as rich in archaic forms and curious old terms as the KA/s/aka Grihya-sdtra and as the Dharma-sdtra of Apastamba, may be likewise attributed to him. As it is, the Vishzu-sitra agrees in style and expressions more closely with the Smmtis of Manu and Y4giiavalkya than with any other work, and it is at least not inferior to the former work in the preservation of archaic forms. Thus the code of Manu has seven aorist forms, while the Vishwzu-sftra contains six, not including those occurring in Vedic Mantras which are quoted by their Pratikas only. Of new words and meanings of words the Vishzu-sitra contains also a certain number ; they have lately been communicated by me to Dr. von Bohtlingk for insertion in his new Dictionary.
All the points noticed render it necessary to assign a comparatively recent date to the Vishzuitic editor; and if the introduction of the week of the Greeks into the ancient Dharma-sftra has been justly attributed to him, he cannot be placed earlier than the third or fourth century A.D.? The lower limit must be put before the eleventh century, in which the Vishvu-sfitra is quoted in the Mitakshara of Vigtianesvara. From that time downwards it is quoted in nearly every law digest, and a particularly large number of quotations occurs in Apararka’s Commentary on Yagwiavalkya, which was composed in the twelfth century °. Nearly all those quotations, as far as they have been examined, are actually found in the Vishzu-sdtra ; but the whole text is vouched for only.by Nandapandita’s Commentary, called Vaigayanti, which was composed in the
1 Whitney, Indische Grammatik, § 826.
2 See Jacobi, Journal of the German Oriental Society. XXX, 306. The first author with a known date, who shows an acquaintance with the week of the Greeks, is Varahamihira (sixth century A. D.)
3 See Biihler, Kasmir Report, p. 52. The MSS. used are from the Dekhan College, Puna.