Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Anc. Sansk. Lit., pp. 360-364; Goldstiicker, Pazini, pp. 132-140; Weber, INTRODUCTION. xlili These considerations will show that it is necessary to allow for Apastamba a much higher antiquity than the first century B.C. The same inference may also be drawn from another series of facts, viz. the peculiarities of the language of his Sitras. The latter are very considerable and very remarkable. They may be classed under four heads. In the Apastambiya Dharma-s@tra we have, first, archaic words and forms either occurring in other Vedic writings or formed according to the analogy of Vedic usage; secondly, ‘ancient forms and words specially prescribed by Paziai, which: have not been traced except in Apastamba’s Sdtras; thirdly, words and forms which are both against Vedic usage and against Pazini’s rules, and which sometimes find their analogies in the ancient Prakrits; and fourthly, anomalies in the construction of sentences. To the first class belong, kravyddas, I, 7, 21, 15, carnivorous, formed according to the analogy of rzsidas; the frequent use of the singular dara, e.g. II, 1, 1, 17-18, a wife, instead of the plural dara; salavrzki, I, 3, 10, 19, for salavrzki; the substitution of / for ry in plenkha, I, 11, 31, 143 occa- Ind. Stud. V, 65-74; XIII, 443, 444. As regards the explanation of Katyayana’s and Pataf@gali’s words, I side with Kaiya¢a and Professor Goldstiicker. But I am unable to follow the latter in the inferences which he draws from the fact, that Katyayana and Patafgali declare Yagflavalkya and other sages to be as ancient as those whose Brahmazas and Kalpas are designated by the plural of adjectives formed by the addition of the affix in to the names of the promulgators. Though Pamini asserts, IV, 3, 105, that only those Brahmazas which are known by appellations like Bhallavinak, Kaushitakinak, &c., have been proclaimed by ancient sages, and though Katya4yana and the author of the Great Commentasty add that this rule does not hold good in the case of the work called Yag#avalkani Bréhmamani, it does not necessarily follow, as Professor Goldstiicker thinks, that an extraordinarily long interval lies between Pazini and Katyayana—so long a period that what Pasini considcred to be recent had become ancient in Katyayana’s time. Professor Weber has rightly objected to this reasoning. The difference between the statements of the two grammarians may have been caused Ly different traditions prevailing in different schools, or by an oversight on the part of Pasini, which, as the scene of Yagfavalkya’s activity seems to have been Videha in eastern India, while Pazini belonged to the extreme north-west, is not at all improbable. As regards the two dates, I place, following, with Professor Max Miiller, the native tradition, K&tyayana in the fourth century B.c., and Patafgali, with Professors Goldstiicker, Kem, and Bhamdarkar, between 178-140 B.C. xliv APASTAMBA.
2As regards the two dates, I place, following, with Professor Max Miiller, the native tradition, K&tyayana in the fourth century B.c., and Patafgali, with Professors Goldstiicker, Kem, and Bhamdarkar, between 178-140 B.C. xliv APASTAMBA. sional offences against the rules of internal and external Sandhi, e.g. in agrzhyamanak4razaf, I, 4, 12, 8; in skuptv4, I, 11, 31, 22, the irregular absolutive of skubh or of sku; in pAddna, I, 1, 2, 13; in adh4sanasayin, I, 1, 2, 21; and in sarvatopeta, I, 6, 19, 8; the neglect of the rule requiring vv¢ddhi in the first syllable of the name PushkarasAdi, I, 10, 28, 1; the irregular instrumentals vidy4, I, 11, 30, 3, for vidyay4, and niksreyasa, II, 7, 16, 2, for niksreyasena; the nominatives dual avam, I, 7, 20, 6, for AvAm, and kru#kakrauZha, I, 5, 17, 36 for °*krau#éau; and the potentials in ita, such as prakshalayita, I, 1, 2, 28; abhiprasdrayita, I, 2, 6, 3, &c. Among the words mentioned by Pazini, but not traced except in the Dharma-sitra, may be enumerated the verb strih, to do damage, I, 11, 31, 9; the verb svinkh, to sneeze, from which srvznkhanika, I, 5, 16, 14, and niksrinkhana, II, 2, 5, 9, are derived; and the noun vedadhyaya, I, 9, 24, 6; II, 4, 8, 5, in the sense of a student of the Veda. Words offending against rules given by Pazini, without being either archaic or Prakritic, are e.g. sarvannin, I, 6, 18, 33, one who eats anybody’s food, which, according to Paszini V, 2, 9, should be sarvannina; sarpasirshin, I, 5, 17, 39; annasamskartrz, a cook, II, 3, 6,16; dharmya, righteous, for dharmya, I, 2, 7, 21, and elsewhere; divitrz, a gambler, II, 10, 25, 13, for devitrz, the very remarkable form pras#ati, I, 1, 4, 1, for prasnfti, finds an analogy in the Vedic snyaptre for snaptre? and in Pali, pa#ha from pras#a for prasna; and the curious compounds avéngagra, I, 1, 2,38, parang4vritta, II, 5, 10,11, where the first parts show the forms of the nominative instead of the base, and pratisdryamatsyaé, I, 3, 11, 31, which as a copulative compound is wrong, though not without analogies in Prakrit and in later Sanskrit. The irregular forms caused by the same tendencies as those which effected the formation of the 1 Wackernagel, Altindische Grammatik, vol. i, p. xxxiii. ® See Zeitschr. d. Deutschen Morg. Ges., vol. xl, p. 539 seq-; Epigraphia Indica, vol. i, p. 3. INTRODUCTION. xlv
3The irregular forms caused by the same tendencies as those which effected the formation of the 1 Wackernagel, Altindische Grammatik, vol. i, p. xxxiii. ® See Zeitschr. d. Deutschen Morg. Ges., vol. xl, p. 539 seq-; Epigraphia Indica, vol. i, p. 3. INTRODUCTION. xlv Prakrit languages, are, aviprakramiza, II, 2, 5, 2, for aviprakramaaa, where an a standing in thesi has been changed to i; sdmvrittik, II, 3, 6, 13, sAmvartete, II, 5, £1, 20, and pary4nta, I, 3, 9, 21, and I, 3, 11, 33 (compare Mard¢hi Amt for antah), in each of which a@ standing before a nasal has been lengthened ; azika, I, 6, 19, I, the initial 2 of which stands for 72, if it really has the meaning of rizika, as some commentators asserted ; anulepaza, I, 3, 11, 13; I, 11, 32, 5, with the Prakritic change of na to ma; vyupagAva, I, 2, 8, 15, with va for pa; ritve for ritvye, wherey seems to have been absorbed by the following ¢; apassayita, I, 11, 32, 16, for apAsrayita, and bhatrzvyatikrama, I, 10, 28, 20, where 7 has been assimilated to the preceding, or has been lost before the following consonant. The irregularities in the construction are less frequent. But in two Satras, I, 3, 10, 2,and I, 3,13, 31, some words which ought to stand in the locative case have the terminations of the nominative, and it looks as if the author had changed his mind about the construction which he meant to use. Ina third passage II, 10, 26, 20, sisnakkhedanam savrishanzasya, the adjective which is intended to qualify the noun sisna has been placed in the genitive case, though the noun has been made the first part of a compound. The occurrence of so many irregularities! in so small a treatise as the Dharma-sftra is, proves clearly that the author did not follow Pazini’s grammar, and makes it very unlikely that he knew it at all. If the anomalous forms used by Apastamba all agreed with the usage of the other Sitrakdras, known to us, it might be contended that, though acquainted with the rules of the great grammarian, he had elected to adopt by preference the language of the Vedic schools. But this is by no means the case. The majority of the irregular forms are peculiar to Apastamba. As it is thus not probable that Apastamba employed his peculiar expressions in obedience to the tradition of the 1 Many more may be collected from the other divisions of the body of Sitras. See Winternitz, op. cit., p. 13 seqq.; Gurupigakaumudi, p. 34 seq. xlvi APASTAMBA.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Anc. Sansk. Lit., pp. 360-364; Goldstiicker, Pazini, pp. 132-140; Weber, INTRODUCTION. xlili These considerations will show that it is necessary to allow for Apastamba a much higher antiquity than the first century B.C. The same inference may also be drawn from another series of facts, viz. the peculiarities of the language of his Sitras. The latter are very considerable and very remarkable. They may be classed under four heads. In the Apastambiya Dharma-s@tra we have, first, archaic words and forms either occurring in other Vedic writings or formed according to the analogy of Vedic usage; secondly, ‘ancient forms and words specially prescribed by Paziai, which: have not been traced except in Apastamba’s Sdtras; thirdly, words and forms which are both against Vedic usage and against Pazini’s rules, and which sometimes find their analogies in the ancient Prakrits; and fourthly, anomalies in the construction of sentences. To the first class belong, kravyddas, I, 7, 21, 15, carnivorous, formed according to the analogy of rzsidas; the frequent use of the singular dara, e.g. II, 1, 1, 17-18, a wife, instead of the plural dara; salavrzki, I, 3, 10, 19, for salavrzki; the substitution of / for ry in plenkha, I, 11, 31, 143 occa- Ind. Stud. V, 65-74; XIII, 443, 444. As regards the explanation of Katyayana’s and Pataf@gali’s words, I side with Kaiya¢a and Professor Goldstiicker. But I am unable to follow the latter in the inferences which he draws from the fact, that Katyayana and Patafgali declare Yagflavalkya and other sages to be as ancient as those whose Brahmazas and Kalpas are designated by the plural of adjectives formed by the addition of the affix in to the names of the promulgators. Though Pamini asserts, IV, 3, 105, that only those Brahmazas which are known by appellations like Bhallavinak, Kaushitakinak, &c., have been proclaimed by ancient sages, and though Katya4yana and the author of the Great Commentasty add that this rule does not hold good in the case of the work called Yag#avalkani Bréhmamani, it does not necessarily follow, as Professor Goldstiicker thinks, that an extraordinarily long interval lies between Pazini and Katyayana—so long a period that what Pasini considcred to be recent had become ancient in Katyayana’s time. Professor Weber has rightly objected to this reasoning. The difference between the statements of the two grammarians may have been caused Ly different traditions prevailing in different schools, or by an oversight on the part of Pasini, which, as the scene of Yagfavalkya’s activity seems to have been Videha in eastern India, while Pazini belonged to the extreme north-west, is not at all improbable. As regards the two dates, I place, following, with Professor Max Miiller, the native tradition, K&tyayana in the fourth century B.c., and Patafgali, with Professors Goldstiicker, Kem, and Bhamdarkar, between 178-140 B.C. xliv APASTAMBA.
2As regards the two dates, I place, following, with Professor Max Miiller, the native tradition, K&tyayana in the fourth century B.c., and Patafgali, with Professors Goldstiicker, Kem, and Bhamdarkar, between 178-140 B.C. xliv APASTAMBA. sional offences against the rules of internal and external Sandhi, e.g. in agrzhyamanak4razaf, I, 4, 12, 8; in skuptv4, I, 11, 31, 22, the irregular absolutive of skubh or of sku; in pAddna, I, 1, 2, 13; in adh4sanasayin, I, 1, 2, 21; and in sarvatopeta, I, 6, 19, 8; the neglect of the rule requiring vv¢ddhi in the first syllable of the name PushkarasAdi, I, 10, 28, 1; the irregular instrumentals vidy4, I, 11, 30, 3, for vidyay4, and niksreyasa, II, 7, 16, 2, for niksreyasena; the nominatives dual avam, I, 7, 20, 6, for AvAm, and kru#kakrauZha, I, 5, 17, 36 for °*krau#éau; and the potentials in ita, such as prakshalayita, I, 1, 2, 28; abhiprasdrayita, I, 2, 6, 3, &c. Among the words mentioned by Pazini, but not traced except in the Dharma-sitra, may be enumerated the verb strih, to do damage, I, 11, 31, 9; the verb svinkh, to sneeze, from which srvznkhanika, I, 5, 16, 14, and niksrinkhana, II, 2, 5, 9, are derived; and the noun vedadhyaya, I, 9, 24, 6; II, 4, 8, 5, in the sense of a student of the Veda. Words offending against rules given by Pazini, without being either archaic or Prakritic, are e.g. sarvannin, I, 6, 18, 33, one who eats anybody’s food, which, according to Paszini V, 2, 9, should be sarvannina; sarpasirshin, I, 5, 17, 39; annasamskartrz, a cook, II, 3, 6,16; dharmya, righteous, for dharmya, I, 2, 7, 21, and elsewhere; divitrz, a gambler, II, 10, 25, 13, for devitrz, the very remarkable form pras#ati, I, 1, 4, 1, for prasnfti, finds an analogy in the Vedic snyaptre for snaptre? and in Pali, pa#ha from pras#a for prasna; and the curious compounds avéngagra, I, 1, 2,38, parang4vritta, II, 5, 10,11, where the first parts show the forms of the nominative instead of the base, and pratisdryamatsyaé, I, 3, 11, 31, which as a copulative compound is wrong, though not without analogies in Prakrit and in later Sanskrit. The irregular forms caused by the same tendencies as those which effected the formation of the 1 Wackernagel, Altindische Grammatik, vol. i, p. xxxiii. ® See Zeitschr. d. Deutschen Morg. Ges., vol. xl, p. 539 seq-; Epigraphia Indica, vol. i, p. 3. INTRODUCTION. xlv
3The irregular forms caused by the same tendencies as those which effected the formation of the 1 Wackernagel, Altindische Grammatik, vol. i, p. xxxiii. ® See Zeitschr. d. Deutschen Morg. Ges., vol. xl, p. 539 seq-; Epigraphia Indica, vol. i, p. 3. INTRODUCTION. xlv Prakrit languages, are, aviprakramiza, II, 2, 5, 2, for aviprakramaaa, where an a standing in thesi has been changed to i; sdmvrittik, II, 3, 6, 13, sAmvartete, II, 5, £1, 20, and pary4nta, I, 3, 9, 21, and I, 3, 11, 33 (compare Mard¢hi Amt for antah), in each of which a@ standing before a nasal has been lengthened ; azika, I, 6, 19, I, the initial 2 of which stands for 72, if it really has the meaning of rizika, as some commentators asserted ; anulepaza, I, 3, 11, 13; I, 11, 32, 5, with the Prakritic change of na to ma; vyupagAva, I, 2, 8, 15, with va for pa; ritve for ritvye, wherey seems to have been absorbed by the following ¢; apassayita, I, 11, 32, 16, for apAsrayita, and bhatrzvyatikrama, I, 10, 28, 20, where 7 has been assimilated to the preceding, or has been lost before the following consonant. The irregularities in the construction are less frequent. But in two Satras, I, 3, 10, 2,and I, 3,13, 31, some words which ought to stand in the locative case have the terminations of the nominative, and it looks as if the author had changed his mind about the construction which he meant to use. Ina third passage II, 10, 26, 20, sisnakkhedanam savrishanzasya, the adjective which is intended to qualify the noun sisna has been placed in the genitive case, though the noun has been made the first part of a compound. The occurrence of so many irregularities! in so small a treatise as the Dharma-sftra is, proves clearly that the author did not follow Pazini’s grammar, and makes it very unlikely that he knew it at all. If the anomalous forms used by Apastamba all agreed with the usage of the other Sitrakdras, known to us, it might be contended that, though acquainted with the rules of the great grammarian, he had elected to adopt by preference the language of the Vedic schools. But this is by no means the case. The majority of the irregular forms are peculiar to Apastamba. As it is thus not probable that Apastamba employed his peculiar expressions in obedience to the tradition of the 1 Many more may be collected from the other divisions of the body of Sitras. See Winternitz, op. cit., p. 13 seqq.; Gurupigakaumudi, p. 34 seq. xlvi APASTAMBA.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.