Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1xxxi 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.
2xxiv. 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. INTRODUCTION. XXXill
3XXX, 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. INTRODUCTION. XXXill first quarter of the seventeenth century. The subscriptions in the London MSS. of the Vaigayanti contain the statement, which is borne out by the Introduction, that it was composed by Nandapamdita, the son of Ramapandita Dharmdadhikdrin, an inhabitant of Benares, at the instigation of the Maharaga Kesavandyaka, also called Tammasanayaka, the son of Kodapandyaka; and a passage added at the end of the work states, more accurately, that Nandasarman (Nandapavdita) wrote it at Kasi (Benares) in the year 1679 of the era of Vikramabhdsvara (=A.D. 1622), by command of Kesavanayaka, his own king. These statements regarding the time and place of the composition of the Vaigayanti are corroborated by the fact that it refers in several cases to the opinions of Haradatta, who appears to have lived in the sixteenth ceritury’, while Nandapazdita is not among the numerous authors quoted in the Viramitrodaya of Mitramisra, who lived in the beginning of the seventeenth century *, and who was consequently a contemporary of Nandapawdita, if the above statement is correct ; and that he attacks in a number of cases the views of the ‘Eastern Commentators’ (Pra#yas), and quotes a term from the dialect of Madhyadesa. The subjoined translation is based upon the text handed down by Nandapawdita nearly everywhere except in some of the Mantras, which have been rendered according to the better readings preserved in the Kazhaka Gvrihya-sitra. The two Calcutta editions of the Vishwu-sitra, the second of which is a mere reprint of the first, will be found to agree in the main with the text here translated. They are doubtless based upon the Vaigayanti, as they contain several passages in which portions of Nandapamdita’s Commentary have crept into the text of the Sftras. But the MS. used for the first Calcutta edition must have been a very faulty one, as both Calcutta editions, besides differing from the best MSS. of the Vaigayanti on a very great number of minor points, entirely omit the greater part of Chapter LXXXI 1 Biihler, Introduction to Apastamba, p. xliii. 2 Biihler loc. cit. tv) c XXXIV 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.
1xxxi 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.
2xxiv. 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. INTRODUCTION. XXXill
3XXX, 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. INTRODUCTION. XXXill first quarter of the seventeenth century. The subscriptions in the London MSS. of the Vaigayanti contain the statement, which is borne out by the Introduction, that it was composed by Nandapamdita, the son of Ramapandita Dharmdadhikdrin, an inhabitant of Benares, at the instigation of the Maharaga Kesavandyaka, also called Tammasanayaka, the son of Kodapandyaka; and a passage added at the end of the work states, more accurately, that Nandasarman (Nandapavdita) wrote it at Kasi (Benares) in the year 1679 of the era of Vikramabhdsvara (=A.D. 1622), by command of Kesavanayaka, his own king. These statements regarding the time and place of the composition of the Vaigayanti are corroborated by the fact that it refers in several cases to the opinions of Haradatta, who appears to have lived in the sixteenth ceritury’, while Nandapazdita is not among the numerous authors quoted in the Viramitrodaya of Mitramisra, who lived in the beginning of the seventeenth century *, and who was consequently a contemporary of Nandapawdita, if the above statement is correct ; and that he attacks in a number of cases the views of the ‘Eastern Commentators’ (Pra#yas), and quotes a term from the dialect of Madhyadesa. The subjoined translation is based upon the text handed down by Nandapawdita nearly everywhere except in some of the Mantras, which have been rendered according to the better readings preserved in the Kazhaka Gvrihya-sitra. The two Calcutta editions of the Vishwu-sitra, the second of which is a mere reprint of the first, will be found to agree in the main with the text here translated. They are doubtless based upon the Vaigayanti, as they contain several passages in which portions of Nandapamdita’s Commentary have crept into the text of the Sftras. But the MS. used for the first Calcutta edition must have been a very faulty one, as both Calcutta editions, besides differing from the best MSS. of the Vaigayanti on a very great number of minor points, entirely omit the greater part of Chapter LXXXI 1 Biihler, Introduction to Apastamba, p. xliii. 2 Biihler loc. cit. tv) c XXXIV 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.