between 600-200 B.C., or whether we believe, as I am inclined to do, that the date of the Sutra period differed for each Veda, still the incontestable conclusion is that the origin of the Apastambiya school cannot be placed in the early times of the Vedic period, and probably falls in the last six or seven centuries before the beginning of the Christian era.
The correctness of the traditional statement that Apa- stamba is younger than Baudhayana may be made very probable by the following considerations. First, Bau- dhayana's and Apastamba's works on Dharma have a considerable number of Sutras in common. Thus in the chapter on Penances not less than seven consecutive Sutras, prescribing the manner in which outcasts are to live and to obtain readmission into the Brahmanical community for their children, occur in both treatises1. Besides this passage, there are a number of single Sutras2 which agree literally. Taken by itself this agreement does not prove much, as it may be explained in various ways. It may show either that Baudhayana is older than Apastamba, and that the latter borrowed from the former, or that the reverse was the case. It may also indicate that both authors drew from one common source. But if it is taken together with two other facts, it gains a considerable importance. First, Apastamba holds in several cases doctrines which are of a later origin than those held by Baudhayana. With respect to this point the puritan opinions which Apastamba puts forward regarding the substitutes for legitimate sons and regarding the appointment of widows (niyoga), and his restriction of the number of marriage-rites, may be adduced as examples. Like many other ancient teachers, Baudhayana 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
1 Baucih. Dh. II, i, 2, i8-23 = Ap. Dh. I, 10, 29, 8-14. * E.g. Ap. Dh. I, r, 2, 30; I, 2, 6, 8-9; I, 5, 15, 8 correspond respectively to Baudh. Dh. I, 2, 3, 39-40 ; I, 2, 3, 38 , I, 2, 3, 29.
XX APASTAMBA.
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 relatives, 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 l. 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 2.
In like manner he protests against the custom of making over childless widows to brothers-in-law or other near relatives in order to obtain sons who are to offer the funeral oblations to the deceased husband's manes, while Baudha- yana has as yet no scruple on the subject3. Finally, he omits from his list of the marriage-rites the Paija^a vivaha, where the bride is obtained by fraud 4 ; though it is re- luctantly 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 considerations, 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 Apastamba. It is true that, according to Baudhayana's own statement6, before his time an ancient sage named Aupa^anghani, who is also mentioned in the .Satapatha- brahmawa, had opposed the old practice of taking sub- stitutes 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
1 Baudh. Dh. II, 2, 3, 17 seqq. a Ap. Dh. II, 5, 13, 1-2, u.
' Ap. Db. II, 10, 27, 2-7. * Ap. Dh. II, 5, n and 12.
• Baudh. Dh. II, a, 3, 33.
Introduction. Xxi
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 Paud/£a marriage l.
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 Apa- stamba's posteriority to Baudhayana. For on several occasions, it appears, Apastamba controverts opinions which Baudhayana 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 property ' 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 shares2. 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- 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
1 For another case, the rules, referring to the composition for homicide, regarding which Apastamba holds later views than Baudhaynna, sec the Fest- gruss an R. von Roth, pp. 47-48.
1 Ap. Dh. II, 6, 13, 13, and II, <5, 14, I.
XX11 APASTAMBA.
opinion of the Mim£;#sists, is, like many similar ones, merely a statement of a fact which has not the authority of an injunction l. 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 respectively go to the eldest sons of Brahma«as, Kshatriyas, VaLsyas and vSudras. 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 2. 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 contain an injunction. As no other author of a Dharma- sutra but Baudhayana is known to have quoted it, the con- clusion is that Apastamba's remarks are directed against him. If Apastamba does not mention Baudhdyana by name, the reason probably is that 1n olden times, just as in the present day, the Brahmanical etiquette forbad a direct opposition against doctrines propounded by an older teacher who belongs to the same spiritual family (vidya.va.tnsa.) as oneself.
A similar case occurs in the chapter on Studentship3,
where Apastamba, again appealing to the Mima/wsists,
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
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
1 Ap. Dh. II, 6, 14, 6-13. » Baudh. Dh. II, 2, 3, 2-7.
' Ap. Dh.I, i,4,5-/.
Introduction. Xx111
shall avoid honey, meat, pungent condiments, &c. ; he further 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 Baudha- yana 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 rules1.
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, especially, that he labours to controvert doctrines contained in Baudhayana's Sutras, give a powerful support to. the traditional state- ment that he is younger than that teacher. It is, however, difficult to say how great the distance between the two really is. Mahadeva, as stated above, places between them only Bharadva^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 pre- decessor in the vidyava#wa 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
1 Cases, in which Apastamba's Gr*hya-sutra appears to refer to, or to controvert, Baudhayana's Gr*hya-sutra, have been collected by Dr. Winternitz, op. cit., p. 8. Dr. Burnell, Tanjore Catalogue, p. 34, too, considers Baudhayana to be older than Apastamba, because his style is so ranch simpler. With this remark may be compared Dr. \Vinternitz's very true assertion that Baudhayana's style resembles sometimes, especially in the discussion of disputed points, that of the Brahmawas. On the other hand, Dr. R. G. Bha«</arkar, Second Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS., p. 34, believes Baudhayana to be later than Apastamba and Bharadva^a, because he teaches other developments of sacrificial rites, unknown to the other two Sutrakaras. This may be true, but it must not be forgotten that every portion of Baudhayana's Sutras, which has been subjected to a critical enquiry, has turned out to be muck interpolated and enlarged by later hands.
Xxiv APASTAMBA.
more probable that Baudhayana and Bhdradva^a, as well
as the latter and Apastamba, were separated by several
intervening generations of teachers, who contented them-
selves 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 l.
As regards the priority of Apastamba to the school of Satyasha<a?//a Hiravyake.rin, there can be no doubt about the correctness of this statement. For either Hirawyake^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 additions, and in the substitution of more intelligible and more modern expressions for difficult and antiquated words 2. 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 Grzhya-sutra. Numerous discrepancies between these two parts are observable. Thus we read in the Hirawyakeji
1 The subjoined pedigree of the Sutrakaras of the Black Ya^nir-veda will perhaps make the above remarks and my interpretation of the statements of Mahadeva and the other authorities mentioned above more intelligible : — Kha^/ika, taught the Taittirtya recension of the Black Ya.fur-veda.
(Successors of KhiWika, number unknown, down to) Baudhayana, Pravaj&anakarta, i. e. ist Sutrakara, and founder of Baudha-
yana-/6arawa. (Successors of Baudhayana down to fellow-pupil of Bharadva'jf a, number unknown.)
(Successors of Baudhayana after the schism down to the present day.) Bharadva^a, and Sutrakara, and founder of Bharadva^a-jfearawa.
