Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1But there remains a third possible explanation, that the two texts are by different authors, one of whom knows and imitates the style of the other, INTRODUCTION. XXXili a character as not to be easily ascribable to mistakes and carelessness such as even a careful author may be guilty of in the course of a large work!. It seems to me then that until the discovery of further circumstances throwing light on the question of the identity of the authors of the Srautas and of the Grthyas, it would be premature if we were to venture on a decision of this question in one direction or the other. Prof. Bihler’s investigations have made perfectly clear the relation in which the Gvthya-sitras and the Dharmasitras stand to each other in those cases, where we have texts of both kinds by the same school. In the case of the Grhya-sdtra and the Dharma-sitra of the Apastambiyas he has proved* that both texts were the work of the same author according to a common plan, so that the Grihya-sitra is as short and terse as possible, because Apastamba had reserved for the Dharma-sitra a portion of the subject-matter generally treated of in the Grihyasitras. Besides there are references in each of the two texts to the other which strengthen the proof of their being written by the same author. In the Siftra collection of Hiramyakesin the state of things is different. Here, as Prof. Biihler has also shown °, we find numerous discrepancies between the Gvthya and the Dharma-sitra, which are owing to the fact, that while this teacher took as Dharma-sftra that of Apastamba with some unessential changes, he composed a Grthya-sitra of his own. Of the two Sftras of Baudhdyana, the same _ distinguished scholar, to whom we owe the remarks we have just mentioned, has treated in the Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. xxxi. , I believe that every reader who compares the two kinds of texts will notice that the frame within which the exposi- : ° tion of the Dharma-siitras is inclosed, is an essentially 1 Cf. my remarks in the introduction to the Sankh&yana-Grshya, vol. xxix, PP: 5, 6. 3 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xiii seq. 5 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xxiii seq. [30] c _ XXXIV GRIHYA-SOTRAS.
2my remarks in the introduction to the Sankh&yana-Grshya, vol. xxix, PP: 5, 6. 3 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xiii seq. 5 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xxiii seq. [30] c _ XXXIV GRIHYA-SOTRAS. broader one than in the case of the Gvzhya-sftras. We have here, I think, the same phenomenon that may also be observed, for instance, in the domain of the Buddhist Vinaya literature, where the exposition of the life of the community was at first given only in connection with the explanation of the list of sins (Patimokkha) which was promulgated every half month at the meetings of the spiritual brethren. It was not till later that a more comprehensive exposition, touching all the sides of the life of the community was attempted?, an exposition which, on the one hand, no longer limited itself to the points discussed in the Patimokkha, and which, on the other hand, necessarily had much in common with what was laid down in the Patimokkha. The relation of the Gvzhya-sftras and Dharma-sitras seems to me to be of a similar nature. The Grihya-sitras begin to treat of the events of the daily life of the household, but they do not yet undertake to exhaust the great mass of this subjectmatter ; on the contrary they confine themselves principally to the ritual or sacrificial side of household life, as is natural owing to their connection with the older ritualistic literature. Then the Dharma-sitras take an important step further ; their purpose is to describe the whole of the rights and customs which prevail in private, civic, and public life. They naturally among other things touch upon the ceremonies treated in the Gvthya-sitras, but they generally merely mention them and discuss the questions of law and custom which are connected with them, without undertaking to go into the technical ordinances as to the way in which these ceremonies are to be performed 2. Only in a few cases do portions treated of in the domain of the Dharma-sitras happen to coincide with portions treated of in the Grzhya-s(tras. Thus especially, apart from a few objects of less importance, the detailed rules for the behaviour of the Snataka and the rules for the interruptions 1 In the work which has Khandhaké as its general title and which has been transmitted to us in two parts, Mahavagga and Xullavagga. 2 Compare, for instance, the explanations concerning the Upanayana in the Dharma-sfitras (Apastamba I, 1; Gautama I) with the corresponding sections of the Grthya-sitras. INTRODUCTION, XXXV of the Veda study (anadhy4ya) are generally treated in an exactly similar way in the texts of the one and those of the other category.
3INTRODUCTION, XXXV of the Veda study (anadhy4ya) are generally treated in an exactly similar way in the texts of the one and those of the other category. We have spoken above of the metrical peculiarities of the Mantras quoted in the Grzhya-sitras, the metre of which clearly proves what is indubitable from other reasons, that most, if not all, of these verses were composed at a perceptibly older period than the descriptions of the sacred acts in the midst of which they are inserted!. A second kind of verses which are quoted in the Grzhya-s(tras must be carefully distinguished from these. It is doubtful whether there are any to be found among them which the authors of the Sfitras have themselves composed; but they were composed at a period decidedly more recent than those Mantras ?, and they therefore exhibit metrical peculiarities which are essentially different. The verses I mean are Slokas of ritual contents, which are quoted to confirm or to complete what is stated in the prose, and which are introduced by such expressions as tad apy 4hu& ‘here they say also,’ or tad api slokak ‘here there are also Slokas,’ and other similar phrases °, ‘We called attention above (p. xix) to the fact that a verse of this kind occurs in one of the Grvzhya chapters of the Satapatha Brahmama, in a metre corresponding to the peculiarities of the older literary style. On the other hand, the verses appearing in the Grihya-sitras differ only in a few cases from the standard of the later Sloka prosody, as we have it, e.g. in the Mahabharata and in the laws of Manu. In the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlind. Gesellschaft, vol. xxxvii, p. 67, I have given tables for the verses in question out of the Sankhayana-Grzhya, and these tables show that the characteristic ending of the first 1 We do not mean to deny that among these verses too a few of especially modern appearance are to be found; e.g. this is true of the verses which Dr. Von Bradke has quoted from the Mfnava-Grzhya II, 14, 34 (Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlind. Gesellschaft, vol. xxxvi, p. 429). 5 Let me here refer to the fact that one of these verses (Asvalfyana-Grshya IV, 7, 16) concludes with the words, ‘thus said Saunaka.’ * Asvalayana-Grthya I, 3, 10 designates such a verse as yagfagitha. c2 XXXvi GRIHYA-SOTRAS.
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 there remains a third possible explanation, that the two texts are by different authors, one of whom knows and imitates the style of the other, INTRODUCTION. XXXili a character as not to be easily ascribable to mistakes and carelessness such as even a careful author may be guilty of in the course of a large work!. It seems to me then that until the discovery of further circumstances throwing light on the question of the identity of the authors of the Srautas and of the Grthyas, it would be premature if we were to venture on a decision of this question in one direction or the other. Prof. Bihler’s investigations have made perfectly clear the relation in which the Gvthya-sitras and the Dharmasitras stand to each other in those cases, where we have texts of both kinds by the same school. In the case of the Grhya-sdtra and the Dharma-sitra of the Apastambiyas he has proved* that both texts were the work of the same author according to a common plan, so that the Grihya-sitra is as short and terse as possible, because Apastamba had reserved for the Dharma-sitra a portion of the subject-matter generally treated of in the Grihyasitras. Besides there are references in each of the two texts to the other which strengthen the proof of their being written by the same author. In the Siftra collection of Hiramyakesin the state of things is different. Here, as Prof. Biihler has also shown °, we find numerous discrepancies between the Gvthya and the Dharma-sitra, which are owing to the fact, that while this teacher took as Dharma-sftra that of Apastamba with some unessential changes, he composed a Grthya-sitra of his own. Of the two Sftras of Baudhdyana, the same _ distinguished scholar, to whom we owe the remarks we have just mentioned, has treated in the Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. xxxi. , I believe that every reader who compares the two kinds of texts will notice that the frame within which the exposi- : ° tion of the Dharma-siitras is inclosed, is an essentially 1 Cf. my remarks in the introduction to the Sankh&yana-Grshya, vol. xxix, PP: 5, 6. 3 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xiii seq. 5 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xxiii seq. [30] c _ XXXIV GRIHYA-SOTRAS.
2my remarks in the introduction to the Sankh&yana-Grshya, vol. xxix, PP: 5, 6. 3 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xiii seq. 5 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xxiii seq. [30] c _ XXXIV GRIHYA-SOTRAS. broader one than in the case of the Gvzhya-sftras. We have here, I think, the same phenomenon that may also be observed, for instance, in the domain of the Buddhist Vinaya literature, where the exposition of the life of the community was at first given only in connection with the explanation of the list of sins (Patimokkha) which was promulgated every half month at the meetings of the spiritual brethren. It was not till later that a more comprehensive exposition, touching all the sides of the life of the community was attempted?, an exposition which, on the one hand, no longer limited itself to the points discussed in the Patimokkha, and which, on the other hand, necessarily had much in common with what was laid down in the Patimokkha. The relation of the Gvzhya-sftras and Dharma-sitras seems to me to be of a similar nature. The Grihya-sitras begin to treat of the events of the daily life of the household, but they do not yet undertake to exhaust the great mass of this subjectmatter ; on the contrary they confine themselves principally to the ritual or sacrificial side of household life, as is natural owing to their connection with the older ritualistic literature. Then the Dharma-sitras take an important step further ; their purpose is to describe the whole of the rights and customs which prevail in private, civic, and public life. They naturally among other things touch upon the ceremonies treated in the Gvthya-sitras, but they generally merely mention them and discuss the questions of law and custom which are connected with them, without undertaking to go into the technical ordinances as to the way in which these ceremonies are to be performed 2. Only in a few cases do portions treated of in the domain of the Dharma-sitras happen to coincide with portions treated of in the Grzhya-s(tras. Thus especially, apart from a few objects of less importance, the detailed rules for the behaviour of the Snataka and the rules for the interruptions 1 In the work which has Khandhaké as its general title and which has been transmitted to us in two parts, Mahavagga and Xullavagga. 2 Compare, for instance, the explanations concerning the Upanayana in the Dharma-sfitras (Apastamba I, 1; Gautama I) with the corresponding sections of the Grthya-sitras. INTRODUCTION, XXXV of the Veda study (anadhy4ya) are generally treated in an exactly similar way in the texts of the one and those of the other category.
3INTRODUCTION, XXXV of the Veda study (anadhy4ya) are generally treated in an exactly similar way in the texts of the one and those of the other category. We have spoken above of the metrical peculiarities of the Mantras quoted in the Grzhya-sitras, the metre of which clearly proves what is indubitable from other reasons, that most, if not all, of these verses were composed at a perceptibly older period than the descriptions of the sacred acts in the midst of which they are inserted!. A second kind of verses which are quoted in the Grzhya-s(tras must be carefully distinguished from these. It is doubtful whether there are any to be found among them which the authors of the Sfitras have themselves composed; but they were composed at a period decidedly more recent than those Mantras ?, and they therefore exhibit metrical peculiarities which are essentially different. The verses I mean are Slokas of ritual contents, which are quoted to confirm or to complete what is stated in the prose, and which are introduced by such expressions as tad apy 4hu& ‘here they say also,’ or tad api slokak ‘here there are also Slokas,’ and other similar phrases °, ‘We called attention above (p. xix) to the fact that a verse of this kind occurs in one of the Grvzhya chapters of the Satapatha Brahmama, in a metre corresponding to the peculiarities of the older literary style. On the other hand, the verses appearing in the Grihya-sitras differ only in a few cases from the standard of the later Sloka prosody, as we have it, e.g. in the Mahabharata and in the laws of Manu. In the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlind. Gesellschaft, vol. xxxvii, p. 67, I have given tables for the verses in question out of the Sankhayana-Grzhya, and these tables show that the characteristic ending of the first 1 We do not mean to deny that among these verses too a few of especially modern appearance are to be found; e.g. this is true of the verses which Dr. Von Bradke has quoted from the Mfnava-Grzhya II, 14, 34 (Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlind. Gesellschaft, vol. xxxvi, p. 429). 5 Let me here refer to the fact that one of these verses (Asvalfyana-Grshya IV, 7, 16) concludes with the words, ‘thus said Saunaka.’ * Asvalayana-Grthya I, 3, 10 designates such a verse as yagfagitha. c2 XXXvi GRIHYA-SOTRAS.
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.