Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1In the same way, the threefold law of breach of promised obedience, non-payment of wages, and disputes between the owner of cattle and his servants has been (33] T 274 BRIHASPATI. developed by Brzhaspati (XVI, 1, 2) from Manu’s two titles of non-payment of wages and disputes between master and servant. An analogous course of development may be observed in the chapters on Ordeals, Resumption of Gift, and Violation of Agreements, as compared to the scanty provisions of Manu (VIII, 114-116, 212-214, 218-221) on the same subjects. In the chapter on Boundary Disputes, Manu’s technical term maula, ‘an original inhabitant of a place,’ is interpreted by Brzhaspati (XIX, 12). It would be easy to multiply examples. One more analogy between the Manu and Brzhaspati Smritis seems to be specially deserving of notice. Both agree in arranging the whole field of legal controversies under eighteen heads, and it appears from the introductory verses to several chapters (XII, 1; XITI,1; XV, 1; XVI, 1; XVII, 1, &c.) that Brzhaspati was anxious to discuss the eighteen titles of law in the same order as Manu. Nevertheless, he applies an interesting new principle of division to the eighteen titles of law by distinguishing fourteen titles relating to civil law, and four titles relating to criminal law (II, 3-9), and introduces a number of subdivisions (II, 2, 10; XVI, 1-3; XXII, 1, 2). Fourthly, Brihaspati declares emphatically that any Smriti text opposed to the teaching of Manu has no validity (XXVII, 4). Under these circumstances the tradition preserved in the Skanda-pura#a that there are four versions of the Code of Manu, by Bhrégu, Narada, Brzhaspati, and Angiras, acquires a peculiar significance. Taking the version attributed to Bhrigu to be identical with the Code of Manu, the soi-disant composition of Bhrigu, it is impossible to doubt its connexion with the Narada? and Brzhaspati Smritis. It is but natural to find, therefore, that Narada and Brzhaspati agree very closely inter se, as e.g. in adding a title called ‘ Miscellaneous’ to Manu’s eighteen titles of law (Brzhaspati X XVII, 1), in enumerating and describing three sorts of proof, eleven or twelve kinds of witnesses, eight or ten ‘members of a lawsuit,’ four parts of a judicial proceeding, four sorts of answer in a suit, Result. 1 See above, Introduction to Narada. INTRODUCTION. 275
21 See above, Introduction to Narada. INTRODUCTION. 275 various ‘defects of a plaint,’ three kinds of officiating priests, four species of gifts, four divisions of violence (sdhasa), five modes of recovery of a debt, &c. Many other analogies between the two works may be gathered from a mere cursory comparison of their contents; they agree particularly in the use of many technical terms. One of these, the designation of a gold coin by the Roman or Greek term dindra, i.e. denarius (X, 15), is an important test for the date of both works, and compels us to refer the earlier date of the composition of Brzhaspati’s law-book to the first century A.D., the period to which belong the earliest Indian coins corresponding in weight to the gold denarius of the Romans. As regards the lower limit, one might feel inclined to assign an earlier date to Brzhaspati than to Narada, on the ground of his being a faithful follower of Manu in a far higher degree than is Narada, who differs from Manu on such important points as the names and order of several titles of law, the legitimacy of the Niyoga, &c.2 Nevertheless, the enlightened views of Brihaspati on the subject of women’s rights’, and the advanced character of his teaching generally, render it probable that his learned composition belongs to a somewhat more recent period than the Naérada-smriti. The fact that Brzhaspati was considered an inspired writer by the very earliest commentators of law-books, such as e.g. by Medhftithi (ninth century), proves him to have preceded those commentators by several centuries. An analogous result may be obtained by comparing the laws of Brihaspati with the corresponding portions of the Burmese The Dhammathats, the Buddhist Indian originals Dhammathats. of which, according to Dr. Forchhammer, were composed in the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, The coincidences between Brzhaspati and the Dhammathats are both numerous and striking‘. It may be added that 1 West and Biihler, Digest of the Hindu Law,], p. 48; Jolly, Tagore Lect. p. 56. 2 See above, Introduction to Narada. * Jolly, Tagore Lectures, pp. 193, 241. * Several coincidences between Brzhaspati and the Wagaru, the earliest law-book of Burma, have been collected by Dr. Forchhammer, Jardine Prize Essay, pp. 55,57, 58. For other examples, see Dr. Forchhammer’s edition of th Wagaru, pp. 1 (gifts), 36 (twelve witnesses), &c. T2 276 BRIHASPATIL. the judicial proceeding described in the well-known drama Mrikkhakatika corresponds to the rules laid down by Bvzhaspati, as has been shown elsewhere. For all these reasons, the composition of the Brzhaspati-smrzti cannot be referred to a later period than the sixth or seventh century A.D.
3the judicial proceeding described in the well-known drama Mrikkhakatika corresponds to the rules laid down by Bvzhaspati, as has been shown elsewhere. For all these reasons, the composition of the Brzhaspati-smrzti cannot be referred to a later period than the sixth or seventh century A.D. Hitherto, those texts of Brzhaspati have been entirely left aside which relate to other parts of the sacred law than Civil and Criminal Law and Procedure. Hemadri’s Katurvargakintamani, Devandabhatta’s Smr#tizandrikA, and most other standard Dharmanibandhas contain a number of texts of Brzhaspati on Dana, Vrata, Prayaséitta, and all other parts of the religious law. However, an examination of these texts has yielded no definite result, and they are not sufficiently numerous by far to admit of reconstructing the purely religious portion of the ancient Brzhaspati-smriti from them. Nor is it at all improbable that the legal texts of Brzhaspati may have formed an independent work from the outset, just like the Narada-smr‘ti, or like the Burmese Dhammathats, in which forensic law was treated by itself, without any admixture of religious elements. The legal texts attributed to Brzhaspati are so numerous as to make up in their entirety a law-book which contains a full exposition of forensic law, hardly inferior in size to the Narada-smriti. The principles on which the texts have been collected and arranged are the same as in the case of the Quotations from Narada. The preservation of the introductory texts to several titles of law, and the occurrence of many long series of consecutive texts of Brzhaspati in the Dharmanibandhas, facilitate considerably the task of arrangement, though the original position of many texts in Brzhaspati’s Dharmasdstra must needs remain doubtful. For the chapter on Inheritance the following other works have been used, besides those consulted for the Quotations from Narada: G. Sarkar’s translation of the Viramitrodaya on Inheritance (V.); Dr. Burnell’s Madhaviya and Varadaraga; Professor Biihler’s edition of the Ugevala of Haradatta ; Haradatta’s Gautamiya Mitaksharé (MS.); Nandapazdita’s Vaigayanti (MS.). Religious texts. Arrangement. BRIHASPATI. I. ConstTITUTION oF A CouRT OF JUSTICE. 1. In former ages men were strictly virtuous and devoid of mischievous propensities. Now that avarice and malice have taken possession of them, judicial proceedings have been established. 2. A judicial assembly is declared to be of four sorts : stationary, not stationary, furnished with (the king’s) signet-ring, and directed (by the king). The judges are of as many sorts. 3. A stationary (court meets) in a town or village; one not stationary is called movable ; one furnished with (the king’s) signet-ring is superintended by the chief judge; one directed (by the king) is held in the king’s presence.
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.
1In the same way, the threefold law of breach of promised obedience, non-payment of wages, and disputes between the owner of cattle and his servants has been (33] T 274 BRIHASPATI. developed by Brzhaspati (XVI, 1, 2) from Manu’s two titles of non-payment of wages and disputes between master and servant. An analogous course of development may be observed in the chapters on Ordeals, Resumption of Gift, and Violation of Agreements, as compared to the scanty provisions of Manu (VIII, 114-116, 212-214, 218-221) on the same subjects. In the chapter on Boundary Disputes, Manu’s technical term maula, ‘an original inhabitant of a place,’ is interpreted by Brzhaspati (XIX, 12). It would be easy to multiply examples. One more analogy between the Manu and Brzhaspati Smritis seems to be specially deserving of notice. Both agree in arranging the whole field of legal controversies under eighteen heads, and it appears from the introductory verses to several chapters (XII, 1; XITI,1; XV, 1; XVI, 1; XVII, 1, &c.) that Brzhaspati was anxious to discuss the eighteen titles of law in the same order as Manu. Nevertheless, he applies an interesting new principle of division to the eighteen titles of law by distinguishing fourteen titles relating to civil law, and four titles relating to criminal law (II, 3-9), and introduces a number of subdivisions (II, 2, 10; XVI, 1-3; XXII, 1, 2). Fourthly, Brihaspati declares emphatically that any Smriti text opposed to the teaching of Manu has no validity (XXVII, 4). Under these circumstances the tradition preserved in the Skanda-pura#a that there are four versions of the Code of Manu, by Bhrégu, Narada, Brzhaspati, and Angiras, acquires a peculiar significance. Taking the version attributed to Bhrigu to be identical with the Code of Manu, the soi-disant composition of Bhrigu, it is impossible to doubt its connexion with the Narada? and Brzhaspati Smritis. It is but natural to find, therefore, that Narada and Brzhaspati agree very closely inter se, as e.g. in adding a title called ‘ Miscellaneous’ to Manu’s eighteen titles of law (Brzhaspati X XVII, 1), in enumerating and describing three sorts of proof, eleven or twelve kinds of witnesses, eight or ten ‘members of a lawsuit,’ four parts of a judicial proceeding, four sorts of answer in a suit, Result. 1 See above, Introduction to Narada. INTRODUCTION. 275
21 See above, Introduction to Narada. INTRODUCTION. 275 various ‘defects of a plaint,’ three kinds of officiating priests, four species of gifts, four divisions of violence (sdhasa), five modes of recovery of a debt, &c. Many other analogies between the two works may be gathered from a mere cursory comparison of their contents; they agree particularly in the use of many technical terms. One of these, the designation of a gold coin by the Roman or Greek term dindra, i.e. denarius (X, 15), is an important test for the date of both works, and compels us to refer the earlier date of the composition of Brzhaspati’s law-book to the first century A.D., the period to which belong the earliest Indian coins corresponding in weight to the gold denarius of the Romans. As regards the lower limit, one might feel inclined to assign an earlier date to Brzhaspati than to Narada, on the ground of his being a faithful follower of Manu in a far higher degree than is Narada, who differs from Manu on such important points as the names and order of several titles of law, the legitimacy of the Niyoga, &c.2 Nevertheless, the enlightened views of Brihaspati on the subject of women’s rights’, and the advanced character of his teaching generally, render it probable that his learned composition belongs to a somewhat more recent period than the Naérada-smriti. The fact that Brzhaspati was considered an inspired writer by the very earliest commentators of law-books, such as e.g. by Medhftithi (ninth century), proves him to have preceded those commentators by several centuries. An analogous result may be obtained by comparing the laws of Brihaspati with the corresponding portions of the Burmese The Dhammathats, the Buddhist Indian originals Dhammathats. of which, according to Dr. Forchhammer, were composed in the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, The coincidences between Brzhaspati and the Dhammathats are both numerous and striking‘. It may be added that 1 West and Biihler, Digest of the Hindu Law,], p. 48; Jolly, Tagore Lect. p. 56. 2 See above, Introduction to Narada. * Jolly, Tagore Lectures, pp. 193, 241. * Several coincidences between Brzhaspati and the Wagaru, the earliest law-book of Burma, have been collected by Dr. Forchhammer, Jardine Prize Essay, pp. 55,57, 58. For other examples, see Dr. Forchhammer’s edition of th Wagaru, pp. 1 (gifts), 36 (twelve witnesses), &c. T2 276 BRIHASPATIL. the judicial proceeding described in the well-known drama Mrikkhakatika corresponds to the rules laid down by Bvzhaspati, as has been shown elsewhere. For all these reasons, the composition of the Brzhaspati-smrzti cannot be referred to a later period than the sixth or seventh century A.D.
3the judicial proceeding described in the well-known drama Mrikkhakatika corresponds to the rules laid down by Bvzhaspati, as has been shown elsewhere. For all these reasons, the composition of the Brzhaspati-smrzti cannot be referred to a later period than the sixth or seventh century A.D. Hitherto, those texts of Brzhaspati have been entirely left aside which relate to other parts of the sacred law than Civil and Criminal Law and Procedure. Hemadri’s Katurvargakintamani, Devandabhatta’s Smr#tizandrikA, and most other standard Dharmanibandhas contain a number of texts of Brzhaspati on Dana, Vrata, Prayaséitta, and all other parts of the religious law. However, an examination of these texts has yielded no definite result, and they are not sufficiently numerous by far to admit of reconstructing the purely religious portion of the ancient Brzhaspati-smriti from them. Nor is it at all improbable that the legal texts of Brzhaspati may have formed an independent work from the outset, just like the Narada-smr‘ti, or like the Burmese Dhammathats, in which forensic law was treated by itself, without any admixture of religious elements. The legal texts attributed to Brzhaspati are so numerous as to make up in their entirety a law-book which contains a full exposition of forensic law, hardly inferior in size to the Narada-smriti. The principles on which the texts have been collected and arranged are the same as in the case of the Quotations from Narada. The preservation of the introductory texts to several titles of law, and the occurrence of many long series of consecutive texts of Brzhaspati in the Dharmanibandhas, facilitate considerably the task of arrangement, though the original position of many texts in Brzhaspati’s Dharmasdstra must needs remain doubtful. For the chapter on Inheritance the following other works have been used, besides those consulted for the Quotations from Narada: G. Sarkar’s translation of the Viramitrodaya on Inheritance (V.); Dr. Burnell’s Madhaviya and Varadaraga; Professor Biihler’s edition of the Ugevala of Haradatta ; Haradatta’s Gautamiya Mitaksharé (MS.); Nandapazdita’s Vaigayanti (MS.). Religious texts. Arrangement. BRIHASPATI. I. ConstTITUTION oF A CouRT OF JUSTICE. 1. In former ages men were strictly virtuous and devoid of mischievous propensities. Now that avarice and malice have taken possession of them, judicial proceedings have been established. 2. A judicial assembly is declared to be of four sorts : stationary, not stationary, furnished with (the king’s) signet-ring, and directed (by the king). The judges are of as many sorts. 3. A stationary (court meets) in a town or village; one not stationary is called movable ; one furnished with (the king’s) signet-ring is superintended by the chief judge; one directed (by the king) is held in the king’s presence.
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.