Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1But 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.
2XXvi 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
32 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.
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.
1But 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.
2XXvi 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
32 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.
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.