yana permits childless Aryans to satisfy their craving for representatives bearing their name, and to allay their fears of falling after death into the regions of torment through a failure of the funeral oblations, by the affiliation of eleven kinds of substitutes for a legitimate son. Illegiti- mate sons, the illegitimate sons of wives, the legitimate and illegitimate offspring of daughters, and the children of rela- tives, or even of strangers who may be solemnly adopted, or received as members of the family without any ceremony, or be acquired by purchase, are all allowed to take the place and the rights of legitimate sons^ Apastamba declares his dissent from this doctrine. He allows legiti- mate sons alone to inherit their father's estate and to follow the occupations of his caste, and he explicitly forbids the sale and gift of children ^.
In like manner he protests against the custom of making over childless widows to brothers-in-law or other near rela- tives in order to obtain sons who are to offer the funeral obla- tions to the deceased husband's manes, while Baudhayana has as yet no scruple on the subject^. Finally, he omits from his list of the marriage-rites the Faisaka. vivaha, where the bride is obtained by fraud ^, though it is reluctantly admitted by Baudhayana and other ancient teachers. There can be no doubt that the law which placed the regular continuance of the funeral oblations above all other con- siderations, and which allowed, in order to secure this object, even a violation of the sanctity .of the marriage-tie and other breaches of the principles of morality, belongs to an older order of ideas than the stricter views of Apa- stamba. It is true that, according to Baudhayana's own statement ^, before his time an ancient sage named Aupa-
^ West and Biihler, Digest of Hindu Law Cases, p. 310, ist ed.
* Ap. Dh. II, 5,13,1-2, II. ^ Ap. Dh. II, 10, 27, 2-7.
* Ap. Dh. II, 5, II and 12.
^ West and Biihler, loc. cit., p. 311, Sutra 24.
XX APASTAMBA.
^andhani, who is also mentioned in the vSatapatha-brahma/^a, had opposed the old practice of taking substitutes for a legitimate son. It is also very probable that for a long time the opinions of the Brahmawa teachers, who lived in different parts of India and belonged to different schools, may have been divided on this subject. Still it seems very improbable that of two authors who both belong to the same Veda and to the same school, the earlier one should hold the later doctrine, and the later one the earlier opinion. The contrary appears the more probable assumption. The same remarks apply to the cases of the Niyoga and of the Ta.lsa.ka, marriage.
The second fact, which bears on the question how the identity of so many Sutras in the two Dharma-sutras is to be explained, affords a still stronger proof of Apastamba's posteriority to Baudhayana. For on several occasions, it appears, Apastamba controverts opinions which Baudha- yana holds, or which may be defended with the help of the latter's Sutras. The clearest case of this kind occurs in the chapter on Inheritance, where the treatment of the eldest son on the division of the estate by the father is discussed. There Apastamba gives it as his own opinion that the father should make an equal division of his pro- perty ' after having gladdened the eldest son by some (choice portion of his) wealth,' i. e. after making him a present which should have some value, but should not be so valuable as to materially affect the equality of the shares \ Further on he notices the opinions of other teachers on this subject, and states that the practice advo- cated by some, of allowing the eldest alone to inherit, as well as the custom prevailing in some countries, of allotting to the eldest all the father's gold, or the black cows, or the black iron and grain, is not in accordance with the pre- cepts of the Vedas. In order to prove the latter assertion he quotes a passage of the Taittiriya Sawhita, in which it is declared that ' Manu divided his wealth among his sons,' and no difference in the treatment of the eldest son is pre-
^ Ap. Dh. II, 6, 13, 13, and II, 6, 14, i.
Introduction. Xxi
scribed. He adds that a second passage occurs in the same Veda, which declares that ' they distinguish the eldest son by (a larger portion of) the heritage,' and which thus apparently countenances the partiality for the first-born. But this second passage, he contends, appealing to the opinion of the Mima;;^sists, is, like many similar ones, merely a statement of a fact which has not the autho- rity of an injunction^. If we now turn to Baudhayana, we find that he allows of three different methods for the distribution of the paternal estate. According to him, either an equal share may be given to each son, or the eldest may receive the best part of the wealth, or, also, a preferential share of one tenth of the whole property. He further alleges that the cows, horses, goats, and sheep also go to the eldest son. As authority for the equal division he gives the first of the two Vedic passages quoted above ; and for the doctrine that the eldest is to receive the best part of the estate, he quotes the second passage which Apastamba considers to be without the force of an injunc- tion^. The fact that the two authors' opinions clash is manifest, and the manner in which Apastamba tries to show that the second Vedic passage possesses no authority, clearly indicates that before his time it had been held to con- tain an injunction. As no other author of a Dharma-sfatra but Baudhayana is known to have quoted it, the conclusion is that Apastamba's remarks are directed against him. If Apastamba does not mention Baudhayana by name, the reason probably is that in olden times, just as in the present day, the Brahmanical etiquette forbad a direct opposition against doctrines propounded by an older teacher who be- longs to the same spiritual family (vidyava/z/j'a) as oneself. A similar case occurs in the chapter on Studentship ^, where Apastamba, again appealing to the Mimawsists, combats the doctrine that pupils may eat forbidden food, such as honey, meat, and pungent condiments, if it is given to them as leavings by their teacher. Baudhayana gives
1 A p. Dh. II, 6, 14, 6-13. 2 West and Buhler, loc. cit., p. 309.
3 Ap. Dh. I, I, 4, 5-7.
XXli APASTAMBA.
no explicit rule on this point, but the wording of his Sutras is not opposed to the doctrine and practice, to which Apastamba objects. Baudhayana says that students shall avoid honey, meat, pungent condiments, &c. ; he fur- ther enjoins that pupils are to obey their teachers except when ordered to commit crimes which cause loss of caste (pataniya) ; and he finally directs them to eat the fragments of food given to them by their teachers. As the eating of honey and other forbidden substances is not a crime causing loss of caste, it is possible that Baudhayana himself may have considered it the duty of a pupil to eat any kind of food given by the teacher, even honey and meat. At all events the practice and doctrine which Apastamba blames, may have been defended by the wording of Baudhayana's rules.
The three points which have been just discussed, viz. the identity of a number of Sutras in the works of the two authors, the fact that Apastamba advocates on some points more refined or puritan opinions, and that he labours to con- trovert doctrines contained in Baudhayana's Sutras, give a powerful support to the traditional statement that he is younger than that teacher. It is, however, difficult to say how great the distance between the two really is. Maha- deva, as stated above, places between them only Bhara- dva^a, the author of a set of Sutras, which as yet have not been completely recovered. But it seems to me not likely that the latter was his immediate predecessor in the vidya- vamsa. or spiritual family to which both belonged. For it cannot be expected that two successive heads of the school should each have composed a Sutra and thus founded a new branch-school. It is more probable that Baudhayana and Bharadv^^a, as well as the latter and Apastamba, were separated by several intervening generations of teachers, who contented themselves with explaining the works of their predecessors. The distance in years between the first and the last of the three Sutrakaras must, therefore, I think, be measured rather by centuries than by decades \
^ The subjoined pedigree of the Sutrakaras of the Black Ya^ur-veda will
Introduction. Xxiu
As regards the priority of Apastamba to the school of Satyasha.(T7^a Hira«yakejin, there can be no doubt about the correctness of this statement. For either Hirawyakej-in himself, or, at least, his immediate successors have appro- priated Apastamba's Dharma-sutra and have inserted it with slight modifications in their own collection. The alterations consist chiefly in some not very important addi- tions, and in the substitution of more intelligible and more modern expressions for difficult and antiquated words ^. But they do not extend so far as to make the language of the Dharma-sutra fully agree with that of the other sections of the collection, especially with the Gr/hya- sutra. Numerous discrepancies between these two parts are observable. Thus we read in the Hira;^yakej'i Grihya- sutra that a Brahmawa must, ordinarily, be initiated in his seventh year, while the rule of the Dharma-sutra, which is identical with Ap. Dh. I, i, i, i8, prescribes that the ceremony shall take place in the eighth year after con- ception. The commentators, Matr/datta on the Grz'hya- sutra and Mahadeva on the Dharma-siitra, both state that the rule of the Gr/hya-sutra refers to the seventh year after birth, and, therefore, in substance agrees with the Dharma-sutra. They are no doubt right. But the dif-
perhaps make the above remarks and my interpretation of the statements of the A'ara«avyuha and of Mahadeva more intelligible : —
'KhSindika,, taught the Taittirtya recension of the Black Ya^ur-veda.
(Successors of Kha.fufi\<.a, number unknown, down to) Baudhftyana, ist Sutrakara, and founder of Baudhayana-^ara«a.
(Successors of Baudhayana down to fellow-pupil of Bharadva^a, number unknown.) (Successors of Baudhayana after the schism down to the present day.) Bli3.radv§.o'a, 2nd Siltrakara, and founder of Bharadvao'a-lara^a.
(Successors of Bharadva^a down to fellow-pupil of Apastamba, number unknown.) (Successors after the schism down to the present day.) Apastamba, 3rd Siitrakara, and founder of Apastamba-^arawa.
(Successors of Apastamba down to fellow-pupil of Satyasha^Aa Hira«yak&sin, number unknown.) (Successors of Apastamba down to the present day.) Satyashac?Aa Hirawyakesin, 4th Sutrakara,' and founder of Hira«yakesi- ^•arana. (Successors of Satyashai/Zza HiraKyak&sin down to the present day.)
After the schism of SatyashaJ/ia Hira/^yakesin the pedigree has not been con- tinued, though Mahadeva asserts that several other Sutrakaras arose. But to work it out further would be useless.
' See the notes to my edition of the text of the Ap. Dh. passim.
Xxiv APASTAMBA.
ference in the wording shows that the two sections do not belong to the same author. _ The same inference may be drawn from the fact that the Hiraz/yakej-i Grzhya-slatra, which is much longer than Apastamba's, includes a con- siderable amount of matter which refers to the sacred law, and which is repeated in the Dharma-siltra. According to a statement which I have heard from several learned Brah- ma;/as, the followers of Hira«yakei-in, when pronouncing the sa?«kalpa or solemn pledge to perform a ceremony, declare themselves to be members of the Hirawyake^yi school that forms a subdivision of Apastamba's (apastam- bantargatahirawyake^ijakhadhyayi . . . aham). But I have not been able to find these words in the books treating of the ritual of the Hira;zyakej-ins, such as the Mahej-abha//i. If this assertion could be further corroborated, it would be
an additional strong proof of the priority of Apastamba, which, however, even without it may be accepted as a fact. The distance in time between the two teachers is probably not as great as that between Apastamba and Baudhayana, as Mahadeva mentions no intermediate Sdtrakara between them. Still it is probably not less than lOO or 150 years.
