COMPARED with the information collected above regard- ing the origin and the history of Apastamba's Dharma- sutra, the facts which can be brought to bear on Gautama's Institutes are scanty and the conclusions deducible from them somewhat vague. There are only two points, which, it seems to me, can be proved satisfactorily, viz. the con- nection of the work with the S£tna-veda and a Gautama Karana., and its priority to the other four Dharma-sutras which we still possess. To go further appears for the present impossible, because very little is known regard- ing the history of the schools studying the Sama-veda, and because the Dharma^astra not only furnishes very few data regarding the works on which it is based, but seems also, though not to any great extent, to have been tampered with by interpolators.
As regards its origin, it was again Professor Max Miiller, who, in the place of the fantastic statements of a fabri- cated tradition, according to which the author of the Dharmajistra is the son or grandson of the sage Utathya, and the grandson or great-grandson of LJjanas or .Sukra, the regent of the planet Venus, and the book possessed generally binding force in the second or Treta Yuga *, first put forward a rational explanation which, since, has been adopted by all other writers on Sanskrit literature. He says, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit, p. 134, 'Another collection of Dharma- sutras, which, however, is liable to critical doubts, belongs
1 Manu III, 19; Colebrooke, Digest of Hindu Law, Preface, p. xvii Madras ed.); Anantaya^fvan in Dr. Burnell's Catalogue of Sanskrit MSS., (p. 57 ; Parajara, Dharmajastra I, 22 (Calcutta ed.)
1 GAUTAMA.
to the Gautamas, a /Tarawa of the Sama-veda.' This
assertion agrees with Kumarila's statement, that the
Dharmajastra of Gautama and the Grzhya-sutra of
Gobhila were (originally) accepted (as authoritative) by
the .Oandogas or SAmavedins alone l. Kumarila certainly
refers to the work known to us. For he quotes in other
passages several of its Sutras 2.
That Kumarila and Professor Max Miiller are right, may also be proved by the following independent arguments. Gautama's work, though called Dharma^astra or Institutes 6f the Sacred Law, closely resembles, both in form and contents, the Dharma-sutras or Aphorisms on the Sacred Law, which form part of the Kalpa-sutras of the Vedic schools of Baudhayana, Apastamba, and Hira«yake.rin. As we know from the ATara»avyOha, from the writings of the ancient grammarians, and from the numerous quotations in the Kalpa-sutras and other works on the Vedic ritual, that in ancient times the number of Vedic schools, most of which possessed Srauta, Gn'hya, and Dharma-sutras, was exceedingly great, and that the books of many of them have either been lost or been disintegrated, the several parts being torn out of their original connection, it is not unreasonable to assume that the aphoristic law-book, usually attributed to the fttshi Gautama, is in reality a manual belonging to a Gautama Parana.. This conjecture gains considerably in probability, if the fact is taken into account that formerly a school of Sima-vedis, which bore the name of Gautama, actually existed. It is mentioned in one of the redactions of the ATarawavyuha 3 as a sub- division of the Rawiyaniya school. The Va»«a-br£hma7/a of the Sama-veda, also, enumerates four members of the Gautama family among the teachers who handed down the third Veda, viz. Gatri Gautama, Sumantra Babhrava
1 Tantravirttika, p. 179 (Benares ed.), TWIT tt
* Viz. Gautama I, a on p. 143; II, 45-46 on p. na, and XIV, 45-46 on p. 109.
J Max MUller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 374.
INTRODUCTION. li
Gautama, Sawkara Gautama, and Radha Gautama*, and the existing Srauta and Grzhya-sutras frequently appeal to the opinions of a Gautama and of a Sthavira Gautama2. It follows therefore, that at least one, if not several Gau- tama ^Tara«as, studied the Sa*ma-veda, and that, at the time when the existing Sutras of L&/y£yana and Gobhila were composed, Gautama Srauta and Grz'hya-sutras formed part of the literature of the Sdma-veda. The correctness of the latter inference is further proved by Dr. Burnell's discovery of a Pitn'medha-sutra, which is ascribed, to a teacher of the SAma-veda, called Gautama *.
The only link, therefore, which is wanting in order to complete the chain of evidence regarding Gautama's Aphorisms on the sacred law, and to make their connection with the S<Una-veda perfectly clear, is the proof that they contain special references to the latter. This proof is not difficult to furnish. For Gautama has borrowed one entire chapter, the twenty-sixth, which contains the description of the IfLrikkhras or difficult penances from the Simavidh^na, one of the eight Br£hma#as of the S^ma-veda4. The agreement of the two texts is complete except in the Mantras (SOtra 12) where invocations of several deities, which are not usually found in Vedic writings, have been introduced. Secondly, in the enumeration of the purifica- tory texts, XIX, 12, Gautama shows a marked partiality for the Sdma-veda. Among the eighteen special texts mentioned, we find not less than nine SAmans. Some of the latter, like the Br/hat, Rathantara, Gyesh/Aa, and Maheldiv<ikirtya chants, are mentioned also in works belonging to the Rig-veda. and the Ya^ur-veda, and are considered by Brdhmawas of all schools to possess great efficacy. But others, such as the Purushagati, Rauhi«a, and Mahdvaira^a Seimans, have hitherto not been met with anywhere but in books belonging to the S£ma-veda, and
1 See Burnell, Va#ua-brahmawa, pp. 7, 9, 1 1, and I a.
* See the Petersburg Dictionary, s. v. Gautama ; Weber, Hist. Ind. Lit., p. 77 (English ed.) ; Gobhila Grt'hya-sfitra III, 10, 6.
» Weber, Hist. Ind. Lit, p. 84, note 89 (English ed.)
* See below, pp. 392-296.
lii GAUTAMA.
do not seem to have stood in general repute. Thirdly, in two passages, I, 50 and XXV, 8, the Dharmajastra pre- scribes the employment of five Vyahrztis, and mentions in the former Sutra, that the last Vyahr/ti is satyam, truth. Now in most Vedic works, three Vyahrztis only, bhu/i, bhuva//, sva//, are mentioned ; sometimes, but rarely, four or seven occur. But in the Vyahrzti Saman, as Haradatta points out l, 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 Dharmajastra 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, 1-6), from the Taittiriya Ara«yaka. But his partiality for Samans as purificatory texts and the selection of the Vyahrztis from the Vyalmti Saman as part of the Mantras for the initia- tion (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 Dharmajastra 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 A^arawa, which according to the A'arawavyuha. quoted in the ^abdakalpadruma of Radhakanta, formed a subdivision of the Ra;/aya;/iyas. The enumeration of four A&iryas, bearing the family-name Gautama, in the Vawz^a-brahma«a, and La/yayana's quotations from two Gautamas, make it not unlikely, that several Gautama /ifarawas once existed among the Sama-vedi Brahma«as, and we possess no means for ascertaining to which our Dharma^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
1 See Gautama I, 50, note.
INTRODUCTION. liii
Southern India and new books from the South will clear up what at present remains uncertain.
In concluding this subject I may state that Haradatta seems to have been aware of the connection of Gautama's law-book with the Sama-veda, though he does not say it expressly. But he repeatedly and pointedly refers in his commentary to the practices of the AV/andogas, and quotes the Gr/hya-sutra of the (raiminlyas l, who are a school of Sama-vedis, in explanation of several passages. Another southern author, Govindasvamin (if I understand the some- what corrupt passage correctly), states directly in his commentary on Baudhayana I, 1,2, 6, that the Gautamiya Dharmajastra was originally studied by the A7/andogas aione 2.
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#yake.rin Satyashaa^a are younger than Baudhayana's. The arguments which allow us to place Gautama before both Baudhayana and Vasish//za are, that both those authors quote Gautama as an authority on law. and that Baudhayana has transferred a whole chapter of the Dharmajastra 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
Dharma^astra. In the discussion on the peculiar customs
prevailing in the South and in the North of India (Baudh.
Dh. I, 2, i-8) Baudhayana expresses himself as follows :
1 A Gnhya-sutra of the <?aimin?yas has been discorered by Dr. Burncll with a commentary by -Sniiivasa. He thinks that the Gaiminiyas are a SiUra-jakha oi the -ia/yayana-Talavakaras.
2 My transcript has been made from the MS. presented by Dr. Hnraell, the discoverer of the work, to the India Office Library. The passage runs as follows: Yatha va bodhayaniyaw dharma^astra/w kau&d eva pa/Ayamanaw sarvadbikaram bhavati tatha gautamiye gobhiliye(?) £/4andogair eva paAiyate II vasishMaw tu bahvrz'&air eva ||
liv GAUTAMA.
* i. There is a dispute regarding five (practices) both in the South and in the North.
' 2. We shall explain those (peculiar) to the South.
' 3. They are, to eat in the company of an uninitiated
person, to eat in the company of one's wite, to eat stale
food, to marry the daughter of a maternal uncle or of
a paternal aunt.
'4. 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.
* 5. He who follows (these practices) in (any) other country than the one where they prevail commits sin.
* 6. For each of these practices (the rule of) the country should be (considered) the authority.
'7. Gautama declares that this is false.
'8. 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 1).'
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 *SIsh/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.'
: inn
^ vtfir
Introduction. 1
As clear as this reference, is the case in which Baudha- yana has borrowed a whole chapter of our Dharma^astra. The chapter in question is the nineteenth, which in Gau- tama's work forms the introduction to the section on penances and expiation. It is reproduced with a number of various readings l in the third Prarna 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 expiation, not in the middle of the discussion, as Bau- dhayana 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 2, jo, u, 13, and 15, which, though supported by all the MSS. and Govindasvamin's commentary, appear to have arisen chiefly through clerical mistakes or carelessness, furnishes
1 Baudhayana's various readings are the following : Gaut. XIX, I = Baudh. Ill, 10, 1, T*§«tW. Gaut. XIX, 2=Baudh. Ill, 10, 2;
; ^«*fui4{:. ^aut- XIX» 13= Baudh. in, 10, n,
miid(irtT. Gaut. XIX, 14= Baudh. Ill, 10, 12, Gaut. XIX, 15 = Baudh. Ill, 10, 13,
Gaut. XIX, 17 = Baudh. Ill, TO, 15, ^^Ul-fH*!^ $fiT «FTHTt. Gaut. XIX, i8=Baudh. Ill, 10, 16, f^^^H left out. Gaut. XIX, 20=Baudh.
in, TO, 18, *%n*ifefo:.
