Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1INTRODUCTION. 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). porayafa narrate ayafa frat wyafa frenfeaft oyafr + EMTS WTATFTTUTTA: 1 5 2 XxX VISHNU.
2Of 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). porayafa narrate ayafa frat wyafa frenfeaft oyafr + EMTS WTATFTTUTTA: 1 5 2 XxX VISHNU. 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
3Generally 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.
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.
1INTRODUCTION. 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). porayafa narrate ayafa frat wyafa frenfeaft oyafr + EMTS WTATFTTUTTA: 1 5 2 XxX VISHNU.
2Of 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). porayafa narrate ayafa frat wyafa frenfeaft oyafr + EMTS WTATFTTUTTA: 1 5 2 XxX VISHNU. 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
3Generally 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.
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.