The only link, therefore, which is wanting in order to complete the chain of evidence regarding Gautama's Apho- risms on the sacred law, and to make their connexion with the Sama-veda perfectly clear, is the proof that they contain special references to the latter. As long as evidence on that point has not been furnished, it is always possible to object, that, though the Gautama Dharmaj-astra may have been the manual of a Vedic A"ara//a, and though one or more Gautamas may have taught the ritual of the Sama- veda and have founded schools of Sama-vedis, still the Dharmai-astra may have belonged to some other Veda, because members of the Gautama family are also named as teachers in works belonging to other Vedas. It is, however, not very difficult to show that the Gautama who composed our Dharmai-astra was a Sama-vedi. For, firstly, he has borrowed one entire chapter, the twenty-sixth, which con- tains the description of the KrikkhvdiS or difficult penances from the Samavidhana, one of the eight Brahma/^as of the Sama-veda ^. The agreement of the two texts is complete except in the Mantras (Sutra 12) where invocations of several deities, which are not usually found in Vedic writings, have been introduced. Secondly, in the enumera- tion of the purificatory texts, XIX, 12, Gautama shows a marked partiality for the Sama-veda. Among the eighteen special texts mentioned, we find no less than nine Samans. Some of the latter, like the Br/hat, Rathantara, G^yesh/Z-a, and Mahadivakirtya chants, occur also in works belonging to the Rig-veddL and the Ya^ur-veda, and are considered by Brahma/zas of all schools to possess great efficacy. But others, such as the Purushagati, Rauhi//a, and Mahavaira^a Samans, have hitherto not been met with anywhere but in books belonging to the Sama-veda, and do not seem to have stood in general repute. Thirdly, in two pas- sages, I, 50 and XXV, 8, the Dharma^astra prescribes the
» Weber, Hist. Ind. Lit., p. 84, note 89 (English ed.) * See below, pp. 292-296.
:lviii GAUTAMA.
employment of five Vyahr/tis, and mentions in the former Sutra, that the last Vyahrzti is satyam, truth. Now in most Vedic works, three Vyahrztis only, bhii//, bhuva//, sva/^, are mentioned ; sometimes, but rarely, four or seven occur. But in the Vyahrzti Saman, as Haradatta points out \ five such interjections are used, and satyam is found among them. It is, therefore, not doubtful, that Gautama in the above-mentioned passages directly borrows from the Sama- veda. These three facts, taken together, furnish, it seems to me, convincing proof that the author of our Dharmai^astra was a Sama-vedi. If the only argument in favour of this conclusion were, that Gautama appropriated a portion of the Samavidhana, it might be met by the fact that he has also taken some Sutras (XXV, i-6) from the Taittiriya Arawyaka. But his partiality for Samans as purificatory texts and the selection of the Vyahntis from the Vyahr/ti Saman as part of the Mantras for the initiation (I, 50), one of the holiest and most important of the Brahmanical sacraments, cannot be explained on any other supposition than the one adopted above.
Though it thus appears that Professor Max Miiller is right in declaring the Gautama Dharmai-astra to belong to the Sama-veda, it is, for the present, not possible to posi- tively assert, that it is the Dharma-sutra of that Gautama TTarawa, which according to the Ka.vana.vyuha., quoted in the 5abdakalpadruma of Radhakanta, formed a sub- division of the Rawayawiyas. The enumeration of four
A^aryas, bearing the family-name Gautama, in the Va;;wa- brahmawa, and La/yayana's quotations from two Gautamas, make it not unlikely, that several Gautama Karauas once existed among the Sama-vedi Brahma;/as, and we possess no means for ascertaining to which our Dharmaj-astra must be attributed. Further researches into the history of the schools of the Sama-veda must be awaited until we can do more. Probably the living tradition of the Sama-vedis of Southern India and new books from the South will clear up what at present remains uncertain.
' See Gautama I, 50, note.
INTRODUCTION. xl
In concluding this subject I may state that Haradatta seems to have been aware of the connexion of Gautama's law-book with the Sama-veda, though he does not say it expressly. But he repeatedly and pointedly refers in his com- mentary to the practices of the iir//andogas, and quotes the Grzhya-sutra of the Caiminiyas^ who are a school of Sama- vedis, in explanation of several passages. Another southern author, Govindasvamin (if I understand the somewhat cor- rupt passage correctly), states directly in his commentary on Baudhayana I, i, 21, that the Gautamiya Dharma- ssLStra was originally studied by the iiT/zandogas alone ^.
In turning now to the second point, the priority of Gau- tama to the other existing Dharma-sutras, I must premise that it is only necessary to take into account two of the latter, those of Baudhayana and Vasish///a. For, as has been shown above in the Introduction to Apastamba, the Sutras of the latter and those of Hira/^yakej-in Satyashart7/a are younger than Baudhayana's, The arguments which allow us to place Gautama before both Baudhayana and Vasish///a are, that both those authors quote Gautama as an authority on law, and that Baudhayana has transferred a whole chapter of the Dharmaj'astra to his work, which Vasish/'//a again has borrowed from him.
As regards the case of Baudhayana, his references to Gautama are two, one of which can be traced in our Dharmajastra. In the discussion on the peculiar customs prevailing in the South and in the North of India (Baudh. Dh. I, I, 17-24) Baudhayana expresses himself as follows :
' 17. There is a dispute regarding five (practices) both in the South and in the North.
' i8. We shall explain those (peculiar) to the South.
' 19. They are, to eat in the company of an uninitiated
* A Gr/hya-sutra of the Gaiminiyas has been discovered by Dr. Bumell with a commentary by 5'rinivasa. He thinks that the Gaiminiyas are a Siitra-sakha of the ^a^yayana-Talavakaras.
^ My transcript has been made from the MS. presented by Dr. Bumell, the discoverer of the work, to the India Office Library. The passage runs as fol- lows : Yatha va bodhayaniyaw dharmasastra;« kais^id eva paMyamanaw sar- vadhikaram bhavati tatha gautamiye gobhiliye (?) A-Aandogair eva pa^/?yate || vasish/Aa;« tu bahvri^air eva ||
1 GAUTAMA.
person, to eat in the company of one's wife, to eat stale
food, to marry the daughter of a maternal uncle or of a
paternal aunt.
' 20. Now (the customs peculiar) to the North are, to deal in wool, to drink rum, to sell animals that have teeth in the upper and in the lower jaws, to follow the trade of arms, and to go to sea.
' 31. He who follows (these practices) in (any) other country than the one where they prevail commits sin.
' 22. For each of these practices (the rule of) the country should be (considered) the authority.
'23. Gautama declares that that is false.
' 24. And one should not take heed of either (set of
practices), because they are opposed to the tradition of
those learned (in the sacred law ^).'
From this passage it appears that the Gautama Dharma-
sutra, known to Baudhayana, expressed an opinion adverse
to the authoritativeness of local customs which might be
opposed to the tradition of the 5ish/as, i. e. of those who
really deserve to be called learned in the law. Our Gau-
tama teaches the same doctrine, as he says, XI, 20, 'The
laws of countries, castes, and families, which are not
opposed to the (sacred) records, have also authority.'
As clear as this reference, is the case in which Baudha-
yana has borrowed a whole chapter of our Dharmaj^astra.
The chapter in question is the nineteenth, which in Gau-
tama's work forms the introduction to the section on
^T^mfiT I1 1^0 II
■miC^ ^^Tn^HRR^ ^IT^ 11:^^11 ft^TTf^flT T^IW: II ^^11
^h4 ^^ ^f^^ f^^^firf^T^v^^^ii^ii"
penances and expiation. It is reproduced with a number of various readings ^ in the third Praj-na of Baudhayana's Dharma-sutra, where it forms the tenth and last Adhyaya. Its contents, and especially its first Sutra, which connects the section on penances with the preceding ones on the law of castes and orders, make it perfectly clear that its proper position can only be at the beginning of the rules on ex- piation, not in the middle of the discussion, as Baudhayana places it ^. This circumstance alone would be sufficient to prove that Baudhayana is the borrower, not Gautama, even if the name of the latter did not occur in Baudhayana's Dharma-sutra. But the character of many of Baudhayana's readings, especially of those in Sutras 3, lo, ii, 13, and 15, which, though supported by all the MSS. and Govindasva- min's commentary, appear to have arisen chiefly through clerical mistakes or carelessness, furnishes even an additional argument in favour of the priority of Gautama's text.
As regards Baudhayana's second reference to Gautama,
the opinion which it attributes to the latter is directly
opposed to the teaching of our Dharmaj-astra. Baudha-
Baudhayana's various readings are the following : Gaut. XIX, i = Baudh. Ill, 10, 1, -^W^t". Gaut. XIX, 2 = Baudh. Ill, 10, 2, ^HTUT
Gaut. XIX, 17 = Baudh. Ill, 5, 15, ^l"\u^^^Brf ^fw ^Tc5T:. Gaut. XIX, i8=Baudh. Ill, 5, 16, f^oR"^ left out. Gaut. XIX, 20=Baudh.
Ill, 5,18, ^^m^ftgfw:.
^ Baudhayana's treatment of the subject of penances is very un- methodical. He devotes to them the following chapters, I, 1 1 and II, i ; III, 5-10 ; and the greater part of Prasna IV.
Hi GAUTAMA.
yana gives II, 2, 70 the rule that a Brahma;/a who is
unable to maintain himself by teaching, sacrificing, and
receiving gifts, may follow the profession of a Kshatriya,
and then goes as follows ^ :
'71. Gautama declares that he shall not do it. For the duties of a Kshatriya are too cruel for a Brahma/^a;
As the commentator Govindasvamin also points out, exactly the opposite doctrine is taught in our Dharma- ^astra, which (VII, 6) explicitly allows a Brahma/za to follow, in times of distress, the occupations of a Kshatriya. Govindasvamin explains this contradiction by assuming that in this case Baudhayana cites the opinion, not of the author of our Dharmaj-astra, but of some other Gautama. According to what has been said above -, the existence of two or even more ancient Gautama Dharma-sutras is not very improbable, and the commentator may possibly be right. But it seems to me more likely that the Sutra of Gautama (VII, 6) which causes the difficulty is an inter- polation, though Haradatta takes it to be genuine. My reason for considering it to be spurious is that the permis- sion to follow the trade of arms is opposed to the sense of two other rules of Gautama. For the author states at the end of the same chapter on times of distress, VII, 25, that ' even a Brahmawa may take up arms when his life is in danger.' The meaning of these words can only be, that a Brahmawa must not fight under any other circumstances. But according to Sutra 6 he is allowed to follow the occu- pations of a Kshatriya; who lives by fighting. Again, in the chapter on funeral oblations, XV, 18, those Brahma;/as ' who live by the use of the bow ' are declared to defile the company at a funeral dinner. It seems to me that these two Sutras, taken together with Baudhayana's asser- tion that Gautama does not allow Brahmawas to become warriors, raise a strong suspicion against the genuineness of VII, 6, and I have the less hesitation in rejecting the
» Baudh. Dh. II, 2, 71:— ^ See p. xlviii.
latter Sutra, as there is at least one other interpolated passage in the text received by Haradatta \ I mean the Mantras in the chapter taken from the Samavidhana, XXVI, 12, where the three invocations addressed to vSiva are certainly modern additions, as the old Sutrakaras do not allow a place to that or any other Paura;/ic deity in their works.
The Vasish//^a Dharma-siitra shows also two quotations from Gautama ; and it is a curious coincidence that, just as in the case of Baudhayana's references, one of them only can be traced in our Dharmaj-astra. Both the quotations occur in the section on impurity, Vas. IV, where we read as follows - :
' ^^. If an infant aged less than two years, dies, or in
the case of a miscarriage, the impurity of the Sapiwfi'as
(lasts) for three (days and) nights.
'34. Gautama declares that (they become) pure at once (after bathing).
' 35. If (a relative) dies in a foreign country and (his
Sapwdas) hear (of his death) after the lapse of ten days,
the impurity lasts for one (day and) night.
'36. Gautama declares that if a person who has
kindled the sacred fire dies on a journey, (his
Sapi//<T^as) shall again celebrate his obsequies,
(burning a dummy made of leaves or straw,) and
remain impure (during ten days) as (if they had
actually buried) the corpse.'
