Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1However 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
2to 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.
3What 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
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.
1However 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
2to 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.
3What 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
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.