Coverument Oriental STORY OF DHARMASASTRA ( ANCIENT AND MEBLEVAL RELIGIOUS AND GEVIL LAW + BY PANDURASG VAMAN KALE, A 1; OM, Apvoca rg, Hien Court, Bompay ; Vicr-PresinentT AND Fen co cd Rovas Asiatic Suckry, Bomps एता = भक "ROFHSSOR OF SANSKRIT, णात तम्मा, Bompay ; AUTHOR | or ५५ Base op SdkshRii Porrics’ Fic. i Vol. I aN at 9९, 187. G Ww ¢ ~~ Ct a €, LIBRARY | €. Ft i ५ he ae Se Po ५७० + ~ + | tye" Le? a a ; ४ be v 7 # a) at Bhandarkar Oricrtas Reséarch institute 7920 Copies can be had direct from the r -Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona(4), I Price Rs. 15 per copy, exclusive of Postage ध "hoes oh BT Y Ace. > ०1 ह {४ 3 3 Se ; 002 < „९६. Ane my od NS , (२ Printed by V. G. Paranjpe, M. A., LL. B., D. Litt., at t} Bhandarkar Institute Press, 198 (17) Sadashiv, Poona No. 2, and Published by, . S. K. Belvalkar, mu. a., ph. 9. at the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona No. 1 * भै TABLE OF CONTENTS : s « ( List of Abbreviations Adeition.. ad ८८५; ६ Joins : Synopsis of contents ‘History of Di-armadastra General Index | Avocadis A - List of Appeutax 3 dist. 0 fuels ११ पकर ५ ॥ on Dharmagasirs LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. A. Br. = Aitareya Brahmana, Anan. or = Anandasrama series, Poona. Anan. P | Ap. ` or Ap. Dh. 9 Ap. Gr. S. = Apastambagrhyasutra. A. 9. 8. = Asiatic Society of Bengal. Baud. or Bau. Dh. ऽ. or Baud. Dh. ऽ. = Baudhayana-dharmasutra ( Mysore edition ). ; = Apastamba-dharmasatra. Bau. Gr. S, = Baudhayanagrhyasatra (Mysore edition by Dr. Shama Sastri ). BBRAS, = Bombay Branch, Royal Asiatic Society. Bom. H. C, R. = Bombay High Court Reports Bom. L. R. = Bombay Law Reporter (edited by Messrs. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal ) B. I. or B. I. ऽ. = Bibliotheca Indica series, Calcutta. Br. Wpanisad or Br. Up. = Brhadaranyaka Upanisad. ए. S. 8 BSS. = Bombay Sanskrit series. Cat. f= Catalogue. Caturfvarga. = Caturvarga-cintamani of Hemadri ( B. I. series ). C. O} = Calcutta Oriental Series. D. Ch = Deccan College collection of Sanskrit mss. now lodged at the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute, Poona. Dh. = Dharmasttra. ९, Cj = Epigraphia Carnatica. ए, 1, | = Epigraphia Indica. © | ; Gan f Gautama-dharmasutra ( Anandasrama edition ). Gy. ६ = Grhya-satra. Hi D. A. 11 History of 00770 प्रि. A. S. 1.. = Max Miiller’s History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature. प्र. = Hiranyakesi-dharmasutra. H. O. 9. = Harvard Oriental series. Hp. cat. or Hp. Nepal cat. = Mahamahopadhyaya Haraprasad Sasyri’s catalogue of palmleaf and paper mss. belonging to Durbar Library, Nepal. 1. H. Q. = Indian Historical Quarterly. I. L. R. = India Law Reports series, Bom. standing for Bombay, Cal. for Calcutta, All. for Allahabad and Mad. for Madras series. Ind. Ant. or I. A = Indian Antiquary. 1. 0. cat. = Catalogue of the Sanskrit mss. at the India Office in London (ed. by Dr. Egveling ). JASB. = Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. JBBRAS = Journal of the Bombay Branch, Royal Asiatic Society. JBORS = Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society. TRAS = Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain. | Jivananda Sm. = Dharmasastra-sarneraha, published by Jivananda at Calcutta in 1876 ( two parts ) ~. २.1. A.=Law Reports, Indian Appeals, the number of the volume being inserted between 1.. R. and 1. ^. Mad. H. C. R. = Madras High Court Keports. M. Gr. S. or Manava Gr. $, = Minava-Grhyasutra. Mit. = Mitaksara on Yajnavalkya. Moo. 1. A. = Moore’s Indian Appeals. N. = Naradasmrti ( ed. by Dr. Jolly). P. Gr. ऽ. = Paraskaragrhyasutra. 7, S. series = Punjab Sanskrit series. Rg. = Reveda. R. प. S. = Recht und Sitte (by Dr. Jolly ) ऽ, 8. E. = Sacred Books of the East Series. S. B. H. = Sacred Books of the Hindus Series. Tai. = Taittiriya. List of Abbreviations ili Tai. ऽ, = Taittiriya-samhita. Tri. Cat. = Triennial Catalogue of Madras Government Sanskrit miss. Tri. ed. = Trivandrum edition. Vaj. 9. = Vajasaneya-Samhita. Vas. or Vas. Dh. S. = Vasisthadharmasatra ( B. S. series ). Vis. = Visvardpa. Visnu Dh. S. or Vi. = Visnudharmasitra (ed. by Dr. Jolly ). V.S. = Vedintasttra. | W. 8. = West and Biihler’s Digest of Hindu Law ( 3rd ed. ) Yay. = Yajnavalkyasmrti. AT. गृ. सू. OF आप. W. OF आप. श. सू. = आपस्तम्ब गृह्यसूच. आप. ध. सू. OF आ. ध. सू. = आपस्तम्बधमस्. ए. a. = देतरेयनाह्मण. काम. = कामन्दक्ीयनीतिसार को. = कोरिल्यःऽ अर्थज्ञाख्न ( Dr. Shamasastri’s edition ) गो. Or गो. ध. सू. = TAMIA. चतुवंग. = चतुवंगेचिन्तामणि. जीमूत. = stares. ताण्डन्य. = AWSTAGTA TAM. ते. आ. = तैत्तिरीयारण्यक. ते. ऋ = तेनिरीयब्ाद्मण- तै.सं t तैत्तिरीयसंहिता. . = निणयसिन्धु. . = पराशारमाधवीय (8. S. series ) qT. =F पाणिनि ऽ अष्टाध्यायी. पर. मी. सू = पृरमीमांसास्. परायर्ित्त्तम- = धायश्चित्तमयूख of नीलकण्ठ. बो. | = वोधायनग्रहयसत्र. बो. ४५ = बोधायनधर्मसूतर. मद. पा. = मदनपारिजात ( 2. 1. series ). मनु. | मदुरति, iv Fitstory of Dharmatastra fret. = निताश्चरा मेधा. = मेधातिथिऽ भाष्य on Agee या, OF याज्ञ. = याज्ञषल्क्यस्सति. बि. चि. = विवाद्चिन्तामणि of वाखस्पतिमिभ. वि. २. = विवाद्रत्नाकर ( 2.1, edition ). विश्व. = विभ्वरूप on याज्ञ. ( Tri. ed ) धीर. = वीरमिन्रोदय ( 011 व्यवहार ed. by Jivananda ). व्य. म. = व्यवहारमगरख of नीलकण्ड ( my edition ). व्य. मा. = व्यवहारमातृका of जीमूतवाहन. हातपथ OF शातपथना. = AAT ATA. सं. कौ, = संस्कारकोस्तुभ of अनन्तदेव. सरस्वती ० 01 | = सरस्वती विलास. स. षि स्घतिच. = स्पुतिचन्त्रिका (ed. by Mr. J. R. Gharpure ). ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS ( N, B. Errors in printing that oan be easily detected have been passed over ). Sec. 4 pp. 12-20 The Dharmasnira of Gautama. Mr. Batakrishna Ghose ( in I. H. ©. vol. [रा for 1927, p. 607 ff ) has an ex- haustive note on the mutual relations of Gautama, Baudha- yanaand Apastamba. He holds that Gautama is not the oldest extant author, that Ap. and Gautama stand in the same relation as Manu and Yajnavalkya, that Baudhayana- dharmasitra is not older than Apastambadharmasitra, that the reference to the views of some in Gautama I5. 30 may easily be to Ap. Dh. S. II. 7. 21. Some of the reasons on which he relies for these views have already been examined in the body of the work. That the extant sitra of Gautama has been in some places revised may be admitted ; but that Gautama as an author on dharma preceded Apastamba’s work cannot be denied. There is nothing of chronological value so far as Gautama is concerned in Apastamba’s re- jection of the view of Svetaketu that even a married man should continue Veda-study. That Apastamba says nothing about mixed castes is on a par with his silence as to niyoga and the secondary sons. Apastamba knew the lowest castes such as Candala and Paulkasa and Vaina ( Ap. Dh. 9. Il. 1.2.6). Asto beef-eating allowed by Apastamba, vide p. 45 of text and Satapatha Brahmana ( S. ए. ए. vol. 26 p. 11 where beef-eating is not allowed to a diksita ) Doctors of law were not agreed on many points of dharma and hence no certain chronological conclusion about indivi- dual authors can be drawn merely from their views on cer- tain points. It is not correct to say as Mr. Ghose does that Apastamba knows no fines for crimes. Apastamba does say that in case of dispute between litigants elders were to decide, that in case of doubt they were to decide by infer- ence or divine proof, that witnesses were to tell the truth and that if the witnesses were found to be false they were to be fined (II. rr. 29. 5-8 ). This shows that fines were not unheard of in Apastamba’s days and if he omits a de- tailed statement thetreason must be sought for elsewhere vi History of Dharmagastra than in his being prior to all dharmasitras, Fines for crimes are as old as the Taittiriya Sarhhita IL. 6. ro. 2. Sec. 9 p. 56 1. 18 read ‘note 41’ for ^ note 46.’ Sec. 10 Sec. II Sec. 13 Sec. 14 p. 60 1. 25-27. After the words ‘the sutra is in close relation to one of the oldest schools of the Yajurveda, viz. Katha’ the following should be added ‘ Vacaspati in his Sraddha- kalpa alias Pitrbhaktitarangini says that the satra of Visnu is meant for students of the Kathasakha, as Visnu is a sdtra- kara of that Sakha’; यच्व्चिं परिस्तीय पौष्ण भपयित्वा पुषा भा इति त्रिष्णस्मृतावुक्तं Achaia तस्य तत्छूञ्कारत्वात Vins. of पितुभक्ति० in the India Office, folio 17a (1. O. cat. p. 556 No. 1730 ) The sutra referred to is विष्णध्मसून्न 86. 9. p. 71 Vide Ind. Ant. vol. 25 for 1896 pp. 147-48 for an account of the ms. of the Iaritadharmasttra found by the late Pandit Vaman Sastrt Islampurkar. p. 84 1. 10 read ‘110° for ‘108’. The Arthasastra of Kautilya, There is a perennial stream of articles and works inspired by the Arthasastra. Some of them that appeared after this work was sent to the press and some that had appeared before but had been omitted through oversight are noticed — here. Dr. Stein has a note on the word ^ surunga’ occur- ring in the Arthasastra and its connection with the Greek word ‘svrinx’; (vide [. H. ©. vol. L. pp. 429-432) and nolds thatthe Arthasastra must be later than the 2nd century ४, c. Che same scholar contributes a note on ‘ Pandyakavata’ occurring in the Arthasastra TI, 11 (in I. H. Q. vol. IV p.778) and concludes from comparison with Brhat-sarhita and other works that the list of countries cannot be carlicr than 6th century A. D. lam glad to note that the veteran sqvant Dr. Jolly (in ‘Zeitschrift fiir Indologie and Iranistik’ for £927 pp. 216-221 ) approves of my view that the original mame was Kautilya and not Kautalya. In the Nidhanpur plate of Bhaskarvarman (1, 1. vol. 19 p. 245, at p. 248) donegs of Kautilya-gotra are mentioned. The verse in the second Act of the Malatimadhava of Bhavabhuti ( युणापिश्चाद्यन्यं 0 क्रान्तमथवा कुतोपत्यस्नेहः कुटिलनयनिष्णातमनसाम |) contains a hit at Additions and Corrections vii the name Kautilya and his teaching. Mr. E. H. Johnston contributes in the JRAS for 1929 pp. 77-102 an article on ‘two studies in the Arthasastra of Kautilya,’ wherein he examines the works of Asvaghosa, the Lankavatira and the Jatakamala and holds that the Arthasastra is not much (वा licr than Asvaghosa and not later than 250 4. 9. It is grati- fying to see that from the untenable position of rclegating the Arthasastra to the jrd century A. 9.) western scholars are receding to the first century of the Christian cra. Prof. Benoy Kumar Sarkar contributes an appreciative and lengthy review of Dr. Meyers work ‘Das altindische Buch vom Welt-&c’ in the Indian Historical Quarterly for 1928 pp. 348-383. Dr. Meyer bas brought out another work ‘on Hindu Law-books and their relation with one another and with Kautilya’ ( tiber das Wesen der altindischen Rechts- schriften &c. ). ‘This work compels admiration for the author’s patience and industry, but is seriously marred throughout by wild generalisations, perverse and_ startling propositions unsupported by weighty evidence. He makes Gautama the latest of the Smrtis and Narada one of the carliest, places Narada several centuries before the Christian cra, regards the compiler of the Yajnavalkyasmrti as a stupid brihmana. He is blissfully ignorant of the references to Gautama occurring in the ‘Yantravartika, which I collect- ed in my paper on ‘the ‘Vantrayartika and the dharmasastra literature’ ( JBBRAS vol. Tnew series for 1925 pp. 66-67 ). He propounds the absurd theory that the Brahmanas were people like gypsies roving about in bands without any morals or principles of conduct, I can agree with some of his conclusions, viz. the non-existence of a Manavadhar- masitra, the non-existence of a floating mass of verses on which authors of dharmasastra could draw. Mr. Batakrishna Ghose submits Dr. Meyer’s work to a scholarly and tren- chant criticism in I. त. 0. for 1928 vol. IV. pp. 570-592. Prof. 0. 1२. Bhandarkar has recently published in a book- form his lectures on ‘some aspects of ancient Hindu polity.’ Vide I. H. Q. vol. V (1929 ) p. 780 for an article on ‘ salarivs and allowances in Kautilya °. viii History of Dharmasastra Sect. 15 pp. 105-107 Vaikhanasadharmaprasna. Dr. Eggers recently published ( Gottingen, 1929 ) his work ‘Das Dharmasitra der Vaikhanasa’, which is reviewed in JRAS for 1929 pp. 916-918. Sec, 29 pp. 129-131 Sumantu. For a dharmasitra of Sumantu, vide Madras Tri. cat. of Sanskrit mss. (1919-1922 ) pp. 5160-62. Sec. 31 p. 154 read ^ In other places’ for ‘ In another places’. Sec. 34 pp. 170-175 Yajnavalkyasmrti. Dr. Hans Losch writes amonograph on ‘Dic Yajiavalkyasmrti un Beitrag zur Quellen-kunde des Indischen Rechts’ ( Leipzig 1927). His conclusions may be briefly summarised as follows : ( 1 ) the text of Yajfiavalkya that we have and that is commented upon is not the original, but is enlarged with interpolations such as Vinayakasanti and Grahaganti ( which are borrowed from Agnipurana chap. 266 and 164 respectively by the compiler of Yaj. Smrti), the section on rajadharma (which is a versified copy of ideas contained in arthaSastra literature ), verses 60-205 of the third chapter ( of Yaj. ): (II) the 2nd book of Yaj. ( on vyavahara ) is a later addition correspond- ing to an older redaction of the Agnipurana ; ( III ) that the first and 3rd books of Y4j. are a recast of an ancicnt text which has been better preserved in the Garudapurana. I have shown in my history of Sanskrit Poetics that the Agnipurana was compiled about 900 A. ०. and in this book it has been shown that‘the Garudapurina must have been compiled about the samc time, that it summarises Parasara- smrti and that it presents a text of Yaj. which is interme- diate between that of Visvarapa and that of the Mitaksara. Dr. Locsh’s work adduces no proofs that would shake these conclusions. Iam pleasedto find that Mr. Chinta- harana Chakravarti holds ( JASB for 1928 vol. 24 p. ‘467 ) that the niti portion of Garudapurana belongs to the 9th or roth century. The indefatigable scholar Dr. Meyer appears to have criticized Dr. Losch in a monograph ( vide review of it by Mr. Batakrishna Ghose in I. H. Cy. for 1929 pp. 367-375). Mr. Batakrishna Ghose holdd that vyavahara did not originally form part of the Yajnawalkya Additions and Corrections ix smrti on the ground that otherwise it is very difficult to explain its absence in the Garudapurana. But this is quite unconvincing. We have no sure criterion for judging on what bases the eclectic puranas ( Agnipurana and Garuda- purana ) proceeded. But in the case of the Garudapurana the omission of the vyavahara section is easily explicable in several ways. The Garudapurana was concerncd more with purely religious matters and so omitted the rather secular chapter on vyavahara. One might ask, why did the Agnipurana omit the first and third kandas of Yajfia- valkya if they existed in its day. One may with equal logic argue that those two kandas did not exist in the Yajiiavalkya smrti when the Agnipurana was compiled. P. 181 The late Sir Ramakrishna Bhandarkar outdid even Western scholars in assigning Yajnavalkya to a date not earlier than the 6th century ^. ०, In his work ‘Vaishnavism and Saivism’ ( p. 148 ) the learned doyen of modern Sanskrit studies in Western India holds that the worship of Ganesa isa late one, as itis not mentioned in the Gupta inscrip- tions. The veteran scholar did not notice the points brought out in my book ( such as the mention of naksatras from Krttika ). He is willing to assign Amarasithha to the sth or 6th century a. p. (ibid. p. 45 ). The great Iexico- grapher mentions Vinayaka and his synonyms (such as ekadanta &c ), but the words Mita, Sammita that are given as the appellations of Vinayaka in Yaj. are conspicuous by their absence in Amara’s lexicon, Hence the conclusion is that Amara wrote centuries after Yajiavalkya and that Vinayaka worship had taken a complexion before Amara flourished that was very different from what it was in Yajn- avalkya’s day. | Mita and Sammita occur as names of Maruts in the Taitti- riya Samhita. P. 186 That गजच्छाया and व्यतीपात had nothing to do with ‘rasis’ follows from the following. ‘ant मधाश्रयोददयां कुखरस्छायसंक्ितः। भकेन्मधायां सस्थे च हाशिन्यकं करे स्थिते ॥ ( १५०९५ in छत्थरत्नाकर 7. 319 as from ब्रह्मपुराण ); भषणाभ्जिधनिषठाद्रानागवेषतमस्तके । यथमा राथिवारेण व्यतीयातः स उच्यते । quoted in परायभ्रिलतरूव of रष्नन्वन as from जहन्मह भ्र, ४, B x History of Dharmatasra Sec. 38 pp. 213-221 Katyayana. Mr. Narayana Chandra Bandopadhyaya has recently published (Calcutta 1927 ) about 800 verses of Katyayana on vyavahara culled from five nibandbas. ` In the Hindu Law Quarterly recently started in Bombay I am editing a reconstruction of Katyayana on vyavahara (reconstructed text from twenty nibandhass, references to the places whence verses are taken, translation, notes &c.). About 300 verses have been printed in the first two issues for January and April 1930. Sec. 38 p. 215 read ‘Manu’ for Bhrgw’ in 1. 11. Sec. 39 pp. 221-223 Angiras. In the and Act of the Malatimadhava (p. 104 of Bhandarkar’s edition ) we have a prose quotation from Angiras गीतश्ायमथोक्गिरसा यस्यां मनश्च्षुषोरनुबन्धस्तस्यासाचि- रिति". In the Apastambagrhya (.3. 19-21) this is cited without name as the view of some 'बन्धुज्ञीलक्षणसपन्नामरो ग। सुपषयच्छेत | अन्धुरीटक्षणसंपन्नः श्रुतवानरोग इति वरसंपत । यस्यां मनश्चक्षुषोर्निअजन्धस्त- स्थाख्चादिर्नतरवात्रियेतेत्येके'. It 15 not likely that Bhavabhiti who was a great scholar would commit a mistake and it is extre- mely probable that he had a sutra of Angiras before him. Sec. 44 pp. 226-227 Pitamaha. Dr. Karl Scriba collectcd together from several nibandhas about 200 verses of Pitémaha and published them with translation ( Die Fragmentec des Pita- maha, Leipzig, 1902) on the eight constituents of karana (i. e. the court of justice ), fifty chalas, twenty-two wrongs (in which king acted suo motu ), ordeals ( 162 verses ) and the four kinds of ascetics. Sec. 64 pp. 275-279 Dharesvara Bhojadeva. In the Madras Tri. Cat. of Sauskrit Mss. for 1919-1922 p. 4562 No 3078 there 15 ams of Bhujabalanibandha by Bhojaraja in 18 chapters on astrological matters in relation to vratas, marriage &c. In the Krtyaratnakara of Candesvara quotations from a Krtyasamuccaya of Bhapala or Bhupalasamuccaya are cited (at pp. 278, 289, 449, 461, 496 &c). It appears that this is entirely a different work from the Rajamartanda and the Bhujabalabhima. Sec. 68. p. 285. 1. 20 read ‘Misarumiéra’ for ‘Harinatha’, | Sec. 71, Adtitions and Corrections ri pp. 294-296 Kamadhenu. That Bhoja was not the author of the Kamadhenu follows from the following words of the छत्यरत्नाकर (. 156 ) “एतानि वाक्यानि अलबणतृतीयाच्रतबोधक- वाक्यमध्ये भूषालकामधेनुकल्यतरुषु लिखितानि. At p. 30 of the same work the grata is spoken of as equal in authority to the Raja ( राजतुल्ययोगक्षेम ). These references show that the Kamadhenu was not regarded by CandeSvara as the work of Bhupala (or Bhojadeva) ; other passages of the Krtya- ratnakara where Gopala, Kalpataru, and Bhupala are spoken ot in the same breath indicate that Gopala was as great an authority as the Kalpataru; and knowing as we do that Candesvara looked upon Kamadhenu, Kalpataru, Parijata, Prakasa and Halayudha as his best authorities, it follows that Gopala was the author of the Kamadhenu, Vide कृत्यरत्नाकर PP. 277, 443 ( गोपारश्रपालकल्पतरुषारिजातेषु तु ). Sec. 72 pp. 298-299 Halayudha. There isa Ms. of a work called Sec. 73 Sec. 74 Panditasarvasva in the Madars Tri. cat. of Sanskrit mss. for 1919-22 p. 5165. Inthe manuscript itself there is no reference to the author or his parentage. It is a large work and deals with वणीश्रमाचार, दैवतिथिनि ख्पण, उपवास, sta, AMAT, WTS, ज्योतिःरासर, विवाहादिसंस्कार, दान, पायश्चित्त, प्रतिष्ठा, खीधर्म, दिव्य, अभक्ष्यविचार, gre. From the style it seems more likely that it is not the work of Halayudha. In the Ekadasitattva (Jivananda vol. II p. 51) and Suddhi- tattva ( Jivananda vol II p. 327) Halayudha is said to be the author of Sasinvatsarapradipa. pp. 301-306 Bhavadevabhatta. There was another work of Bhavadevabhatta called Sam- bandha-viveka. This work is mentioned in the Sarhskdra- tattva ( Jivananda vol I p. 890) and in the Vivahatattva (vol. II p. 143 ). pp. 306-308 Prakasa. The Vivadaratnikara and other Ratnakaras of Candesvara generally refer to Prakasa only, but sometimes Candesvara speaks of Smrtimaharnavaprakaga e. g. on p. 326 of Krtyaratnakara we have ‘ जाबाटमत्स्यपुराणवाक्यपरामशान्निराधि- ASSIS: साग्निभिश्चेतरपुतेरेकोष्टिष्टं कार्यमिति eaergrorawrsrarert इति xif History of Dharmasistra कल्पतरौ लिखितमन्येश्वालुमोदितं agg. This also shows that Smrtimaharnavaprakasa was a work referred to by the Kalpataru and so earlier than 1100 A. D. Sec. 87 pp. 354-359 Hemadri. In the Marathi Quarterly of the Bharata-itihasa-samsodhaka- mandala, vol. X part 2 p. 84, Mr. Y. K. Deshpande quotes from a work called Bhanuvijaya of the Mahanubhava sect passages wherein Hemadri is charged with having been won over by Turks (Mahomedans) and with having brought about the imprisonment of Bhanubhatta alias Bhaskara Kavisvara Vyasa (a Mahanubhava saint ) जरि करावा रणकन्दन | हेमाद्रि Tet लागले पण | दिह्टीभ्वरे देवोनि धन । मत्री पा TA केला ॥ भानगणीं असाहणेपणे । अहिता प्रेरिलै qual get ate भसे आंगवणे । हेमाद्रियेची बधाविले |’. But in the absence of other corroborative evidence hardly any reliance can be placed on this charge, as it might have been levelled at Hemadri in revenge for his imprisoning a leader of a dissenting sect like that of the Mahanubhavas. P. 359 In the Sivadigvijaya ( printed at Baroda in Sake 1817) at p. 442 Hemadapanta ( Hemadri ) is credited with having brought from Lanka ( Ceylon ) in Sake 1193 ( 1271-2 A. D.) the ‘Pisacca lipi’ ( Modi script ). P. 368 |. 16 Read ‘contemplate’ for ‘complete’. P. 398 foot note 969 Read ‘aaa gaa’ for (अलमत तनय. SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS Sec. 1 Meaning of dharma : we Pp. I-4 Defies exact rendering in English - In the Rgveda, used as ad- jective or noun - means ^ upholder or supporter’ in some Rgvedic passages ~ in most Rgveda passages means ‘ religious ordinances or rites ° and in rare cases ^ fixed principles or rules of conduct’ ~ in Aitareya-brahmana dharma means ‘ whole body of religious duties’ in Chandogya-Upanisad dharma means ‘peculiar duties of asramas~’ dharma came to mean ^ duties and privileges of a person as a mem- ber of the Aryan community, as member of one of the varnas or as in a particular stage of life’ - the same meaning in Taittiriya Upa- nisad (I. 17 ), Bhagavadgita, Manusmrti and other smrtis - according to Medhatithi, dharma five-fold viz., varnadharma, 4Sramadharma, varnasramadharma, naimittikadharma, gunadharma - this meaning of dharma taken in this work - definitions of dharma according to Jaimini, Vaisesikasutra, Hlarita, Mahabharata and Buddhist works - subjects treated in this work, viz. sources of dharma, contents of works on dharma, their chronology. Sec. 2 Sources of dharma : ,.. PP. 4-7 According to Gautama, Apastamba, Vasistha, Manu, Yajiia- valkya -- principal sources were Veda, smrtis and custom - Vedas do not contain positive precepts on dharma, but give information incidentally - examples from Vedic literature suggesting dharmagastra rules. Sec. 3 When dharmasastra works were first composed ० pp. 8-10 It is difficult to say when composed - Nirukta (III. 4-5 ) exhibits controversies about inheritance and quotes a verse ( Sloka ) from some work on dharma - Bithler’s view about such verses -- Gautama and Baudhayana speak of dharmaégastra = Baudhayana and Apastamba mention numerous sages on dharma = Vartika of Katyayana and Jai- mini speak of dharmasastra - Patafijalion dharmasttrakaras - dharma- Sastra works existed prior to Yaska or at least before 600 8. €, and in 2nd centriry 8, c. dharmasatras had become authoritative - method of dealing with the whole dharmaSastra literatpre followed in this xiv History of Dharmatastra book, first dharmasatras, then carly metrical smrtis like those of Manu and Yajfiavalkya, later versified smrtis, then commentaries and digests, such as the Mitaksara - chronology of early writers very difficult to settle - Max Miller’s view that works in continuous loka metre followed stitra works not acceptable. See. 4 Dharmasitras : ee) pp. 10-12 Many of them formed part of the Kalpa and were studied in distinct satra-caranas ~ dharmasitras of Apastamba and Baudhayana presuppose erhysitras of their carana- no dharmastitras extant corresponding to the grauta and grhya siitras of Asvalayana, Sankha- yana and Manava-Tantravartika on what dharmasitra was studied in what particular Vedic Sakha - all dharmasatras gradually became authoritative in all schools = close connection between grhyasttras and dharmasutras on certain topics - scope of dharmastitras ~ grhya- siitras sometimes refer to dharmasitras = points of distinction be- tween dharmasttras and the other smrtis. Sec. § Dharmasatra of Gautama : ०० © pp. 12-20 Gautama’s is the oldest extant dharmasiitra - specially studied by followers of Simaveda - Gautama one of the nine subdivisions of the Ranayaniya school of Samaveda - Gautamadharmasttra points to close connection with Simaveda - Gautama refers to his own previous dicta - contents of 28 chapters of Gautamadharmasitra - the work is entirely in prose - Gautama’s language agrees more with Panini’s rules than Apastamba’s - explanation of this = Haradatta prefers Paninian rcadings of Gautama’s text - some siitras of Gautama quoted in the Mitaksara and other works not found in extant text - extent of literature known to Gautama - the only author named is Manu - the meaning of ‘acaryih’ whose views are cited by Gautama - earliest reference to Gautama on dharma is in Baudhayana- dharmasitra - Baudhayana (III. 10) borrows chap. 19 of Gautama - close correspondence between many other satras of Gautama and Baudhayana = Vasistha (4. 34 and 36) refers to views of Gautama -Vasistha’s 22nd chap. is borrowed from rgth of Gautama ~ many 5045 the same in Gautama and Vasistha - Gau- tama referred to by Manu asson of Utathya - Gautama referred to by Yajiavalkya, Bhavisyapurana, Kumarila, Sarhkaricirya, Medha- tithi = Gautama’s reference to Yavana = probable age between 600 - Synopeis of contents ओर 400 ४. ©. ~ Haradatta and Maskarin commented on Gautama - Asahaya also did so - sloka - Gautama and Vrddha ~ Gautama. Sec. 6 Baudhayana-dharmasatra : we 7}, 20-32 Baudhayana is a teacher of the Black Yajurveda ~ arrangement of Baudhayana kalpa according to Dr. Burnell and Dr. Caland - Baudhayanagrhya -presupposes the Baudhayanadharmasiatra - grhya (III.9.6) speaks of pravacanakara Kanva Bodhayana and satrakara Apa- stamba - tarpana in Baudhayana-dharmasitra (II. 5. 27 ) mentions Kanva Bodhayana, Apastamba and Hiranyakesin - contents of Baudhayana-dharmasttra - extant sitra has not come down intact - fourth prasna probably an interpolation - third prasna also not free from doubt = Baudhiayana III]. 10 taken from Gautama - Baudha- yana III. 6 agrees closely with Visnudharmasitra 48 - Dr. Jolly thinks both borrowed froma common source - probably Visnu borrows from Baudhayana - repetitions exist even in the first two prasnas - form and structure of Baudhayana - quotes numerous verses, even in the first two prasnas - language of Baudhayana often departs from Paninian standard - literature known to Baudha- yana - several authors on dharma together with their views mention- ed by Baudhayana - Asura Kapila said to be originator of agramas- Sabara, Kumiarila, Visvaripa and Medhatithi refer to Baudhayana dharmasutra - home of Baudhayana ~ Baudhayana is styled prava- canakira and Apastamba sitrakara - Bihler holds that Baudhayana was a southern teacher - age of Baudhayana dharmasitra - later than Gautama - Bithler’s reasons for placing Baudhayana a century or two earlier than Apastamba not convincing - divergences between Biudhayana and Apastamba = style of Baudhayana compared with that of Apastamba - Baudhayana to be placed between 500-200 B. ८.- numerous stitras of Baudhayana identical with those of Apastamba and Vasistha ~ Baudhayana mentions several appellations of Ganeéa, just as Manavagrhya does and mentions seven planets, Rahu and Ketu - Govindasvamin commented on Baudhayana. Sec. 7 Dharmasutra of Apastamba: ... Pp. 32-46 The Apastambakalpasutra of the Black Yajurveda divided into 30 prasnas, dharmasutra constituting 28th and 29th prasnas thereof - Apastamba is one of the five subdivisions of the Khandikeya school of Taittiriyasakha = Apastambagrhya and dharma sutras are composi- xvi History of Dharmatastra tions of same author - some sutras of the two are identical - Ap. grhya does not treat of some topics as they are dealt with in dharma sitra - contents of Ap. dharmasutra - form and structure of Ap. dharmasitra - Ap. is more archaic and un-Paninian than any other dharmasitra - many unfamiliar words in Ap. - several verses quoted in Ap. - literature known to Ap. - Ap. mentions six afigas of Veda and ten writers on dharma by name - Svetaketu and Ap. - Harita quoted frequently by Ap. - Ap. controverts several views - striking coincidences between Gautama and Ap. - Ap. quotes a verse from Purana and speaks of the view of Bhavisyatpurana - Apastamba and Manu - Apastamba presupposes many rules of the Mimarhsa and agrees closely with Jaimini’s sutras - age of Ap. Dh. S. - quoted by Sabara, Kumarila, Sarhkaracirya, Visvarapa and Medhatithi - home and personal history of Apastamba not known - Ap. is later than Gautama and probably Baudhayana - his age between 600-300 B. c.- Ap. condemns niyoga, rejects secondary sons, does not admit paisaca and Prajapatya forms of marriage - divergence betwccn the views of Ap. and Gautama and other sitrakaras - Haradatta’s is the only commentary extant on Ap. - Apastamba smrti in verse. Sec. 8. Hiranyakesidbarmasitra : .. Pp. 46-50 Hiranyakesidharmasitra forms 26th and 27th prasnas of the Hiranyakesikalpa-Hiranyakesin’s can be hardly called an independent work, as it borrows hundreds of stitras word for word from Ap. -a few additions made to Ap. in Hiranyakesi Dh. S. - Hiranyakcsin’s readings are smoother and more classical than Apastamba’s - arrange- ment of sutras also is somewhat different in the two - com. of Maha- deva called Ujjvala on Hiranyakesgin is almost the same as Haradatta’s on Ap. ~ Buhler thinks Mahadeva borrows from Haradatta - Mahadeva’s com. in a few places contains more matter than Hara- ` datta’s and Mahadeva differs from Haradatta. Sec. 9 Vasistha-dharmasaira : i. Pp. 50-60 Different editions of Vasistha contain different numbers of chapters - Kumarila says it was specially studied by Rgvedins - ex- planation of this statement - nothing special in the V asisthadharma- sutra to connect it with Rpveda - contents of the Vasisthadharma- sutra - style of Vas. Dh. S. resembles Gautama’s - many ‘sutras ot Vas. identical with Gautama and Baudhayana - form of Vasistha Synopsts of contents XVii dharmasatra resembles Baudhayana dharmasitra - Medhatithi and Mitaksara quote from almost all chapters of extant Vasistha and so does Visvarupa - literature known to Vasistha - Vasistha prohibits learning language of Mlecchas - authors on dharmasastra named by Vasistha - Vasistha’s references to the views of Manu are made with reference to a work of Manu almost identical with the present Manu- smrti and do not compel us to formulate the existence of a Manava- dharmasiatra - Buhler wrong in taking Vas. Dh. ऽ. 4. 8 as a quota- tion from Manavadharmasutra - Only Vas. Dh. S. 12.16 and 19. 37 where Manu is quoted have no corresponding verses in the present Manusmrti - Over forty verses are entirely common to Vas. and present Manusmrti - conclusion that Vas. contains borrowings from the present Manusmrti or its prototype in verse - Vas. Dh. ऽ. 22 is same as Gautama 19 - Dr. Jolly’s view that Vas. Dh. S. 28.10-r5 and 18-22 are borrowed from Visnudharmasttra chap. 56 and 87 or its original the Kathakadharmasiatra is wrong - home of Vas. to the north of Narmada, according to Buhler - this is mere specula- tion - earliest reference to Vasistha asa writer on dharma is in Manu (8-140) - age of Vasistha - Vasistha’s views are ancient, praticularly about secondary sons, about Dattaka son, about niyoga and remarriage - he mentions only six forms of marriage - but in other matters differs from Gaut. or Baudh. viz. on adoption, on documents - Vas. Dh. ऽ. between 300-100 ए, €. ~ whether Vas. 18. 4 (Ramaka v. 1. Romaka) contains a reference to the Romans ~ Vrddha-Vasistha, an early compilation - there is a Brhad Vasistha and a Jyotir Vasistha - Yajiiasvamin commented upon Vas. Dh. S. Sec. 10 Visnudhbarmasatra : ०, pp. 60-70 Visnu Dh, ऽ, contains too chapters and yet sitra not extensive- several chap, ( 40, 42, 76) contain only one sitra and one verse - first chap. and 1251 two are entirely in verse, the rest in mixed prose and verse - Visnu Dh. S. closely connected with Kathasakha - Dr. Jolly says chap. 21, 67, 73 and 86 of Visnu closely correspond with Kathaka grhya - but Visnu Dh. ऽ. is not the work of the author of Kathaka grhya- contents of Visnu Dh. S. - Visnu resembles Vas. Dh. S. - its peculiar feature that it. professes to be re- vealed by God Visnu - its style, easy and diffuse - work contains old H, D.C, xviii History of Dharmatastra and new material - hundreds of siittras are prose renderings of hundreds of verses occurring in our Manu - hypothesis of a common origin or borrowing by both from a floating mass of verses untenable - extant Visnudharmasatra borrows from Manu - Visnu contains verses identical with the Bhagavadgita and Yajfavalkya smrti - Dr. Jolly’s view that Yajfiavalkya borrows his anatomical section from Visnu not correct - Visnu Dh. ऽ, contains long list of tirthas, the word Jaiva for Jupiter - those wanting in Yajnavalkya - extant Visnu Dh. S. later than Manusmrti and Yajnavalkyasmru - Visva- rupa does not quote a single sutra of Visnu by name, though he refers to Visnu (ch. 97) for orders of sarnnydsins - Mitiksara quotes hardly any verse from Visnu - Apararka and Smrticandrika quote Visnu profusely-verses were added at a late date to original sutra - literature known to Visnu Dh. S. - Visnu mentions the seven days of the week, recommends the practice of sati, speaks of pus- takas, of many good and evil omens ;among which the sight of yellow-robed Buddhist ascetics is included - it prohibits speech with Mlecchas and journeys to Mleccha countries, it dilates on worship of Vasudeva - though Visnu agrees in'some respects with Kathaka- yrhya, on some points it differs from it -- date of older kernel of Visnu may be 300 to 100 8.८. - additions made after 3rd century A.D. and before 7th century - some sutras agree closely with Narada - Brhad Visnu and Vrddha Visnu and Laghu Visnu - Nandapandita’s com. on the Visnu Dh. S. - probably Bharuci also commented on it. Sec. 1x The dharmasntra of Harita : «ss 72. 70-75 Baudhayana, Apastamba and Vasistha quote Hirita as an authority - Mr. Islampurkar secured a ms. of Hirita-dharmasitra at Nasik in 30 chapters - contents of that ms. - its relation to Maitra- yaniyasathita - it mentions ‘the Kagmirian word ‘‘Kaphella” -- quotations in commentaries and digests show that Harita dealt ex- haustively with the same topics that are found in other dharma- sutras ~ Kumarila mentions Harita as dharmasastrakara but does not assign him to any particular carana as he does Apastamba and others- notable doctrines of Hirita - mentions worship of Ganesa - Hirita’s verses on vyavahara quoted in nibandhas are later than the siitra - Laghu Harita and Vrddha Harita - latter in verse is later thar: Yajnia- valkya, Narada and Katyayana, | Synopsis of contents xix Sec. 12 The dharmasatra of Sankba-Likbita : ,,, 70. 75-79 From Tantravartika it appears that dharmasitra of Sankha- Likhita was studied by Vajasaneyins - Mahabharata (Santi 23) contains story of brothers Sankha and Likhita - Various compilations ascribed to Sankha alone or Likhita alone or to both - Restoration of Dharmasatra in Annals of Bhandarkar Institute (vol. VII, VIII) - Verse Sankhasmrti stricter than prose Sankha - Likhita - com. on dharmasatra mentioned in Kalpataru and Vivadaratnikara - doctrines of dharmasiitra similar to those of other dharmasttras - speaks of twelve secondary sons - allows niyoga - speaks of several ordeals - de- fines Aryavarta as between Sindhu - Sauvira and Kimpilya - Litera- ture known to Sankha Likhita - probable age between 300-100 ए, €. Sec. 13 Manavadharmasatra ; Did it exist ? ,,, pp. 79-85 MaxMiller and Weber responsible for the theory that the extant Manusmrti was a recast of an ancient Manavadharmasitra now lost - hardly any data for the sweeping generalisation of Max- Miller that all genuine dharmasastras are nothing but more medern texts of earlicr sitra works on kuladharma - one main plank of this theory that che continuous employment of the loka metre was un- known in the sutra period is now exploded - Bihler supports Max Miillcr’s theory by some additional arguments - Vasistha IV. 5-8 on which Buhler relies not properly understood by him - Vasistha ( 19-37 ) quotes a Manava loka which is not in the Anustubh metre and not found in extant Manu and Bihler thinks it is taken from Manavadharmasttra - Bihler’s reliance on a fragment of Uéanas which is corrupt is not worth consideration - Biihler relies on Kamandakiyanitisara (11. 3. and XI. 67) where Manavas are said to hold that there are three vidyas for a king and that Manu said that king’s council should consist of 12 ministers - These views not the same in extant Manu- Bihler’s conclusion not correct - Kamandaka is only paraphrasing Kautiliya - Bihler’s generalisation about Manava or Manavah without foundation - Kumiarila, Sankara, and Visvaripa all employ ‘Manava’ for Manusnnirti - Bihler relies on analogy of the complete set of Apastamba and Baudhayana sutras for holding that a Manavadharmasitra existed - Proper explanation of Vas. Db. 5. 1V. 5-8 ~ Bithler not right in saying that Vas, Dh. S. 11. 23, 12, 16, 23. 43 either contradict Manu or find no counterpart 2X History of Dharmatistra therein - analogy of Apastamba sitras of no use - excepting the three caranas of the Black Yajurveda, no carana of any Veda hasa dharmasatra attributed to the founder of that carana - an explanation suggested - existing materials not sufficient to establish theory that a Manavadharmasutra once existed. Sec. 14 Arthasastra of Kautilya : .. pp. 85-104 First translated by Dr. Shama Sastri and text published in 1909 - other editions - numerous works and articles inspired by the publication of Kautiliya Arthaéastra - Kautiliya is oldest extant work on ArthaSastra - scope of arthasastra and relation to dharma- é4stra ~ arthagastra an upaveda of Atharvaveda - purpose of this Sastra - rule in case of conflict between Dharmasastra and Artha- Sastra - Canakya, Kautilya and Visnugupta are namesof the same person - glowing tribute paid to Canakya or Visnugupta by Kama- ndakiyanitisara, Tantrakhyd4yiki, Dandin - Bina and Pancatantra on Kautilya as author of Arthasastra - Brhatkatha of Gunadhya contain- ed his story - Mudraraksasa connects his name with Kutila - contro- versy as to whether Kautiliya can be the work of a busy minister of Candragupta Maurya - Jolly, Winternitz and Keith hold that extant work is not by the minister of Candragupta - Megasthenes’ silence about Canakya explained - whether the Kautiliya is the product of a school or of an individual author - Kautilya’s views cited about 70 times in the work in the third person - explanation of this - Dr. Jolly wrong in his explanation of apadesa (in XV. 1) - Keith thinks that an author would not parade an uncomplimentary epithet like Kautilya (derived from kutila ) - Is the name Kautilya or Kautalya - works on gotra and pravara give various forms such as Kautali, Kautilya and Kautili - form, style and contents of the Kautiliya - a few verses interspersed in the work, generally at the end -in all 340 verses excluding mantras - some verses are certainly quotations - work abounds in numerous technical and rare words - deviations from Panini - summary of contents - section on judicial administra- tion interesting - greatest correspondence between Kautiliya and Yajfiavalkya - some striking examples - it is. Yajiiavalkya that borrows - reasons - Yajiiavalkya represents a far too advanced stage Synopsis of contents xxi of juristic principles than Kautilya - close agreement between Manu smrti and Kautilya also - but they differ on miyoga, as to nomencla- ture of vyavaharapadas, about heirship of mother and paternal grand- mother, on remarriage of widows, divorce, gambling - Kautiliya long anterior to the extant Manusmrti - Kautilya’s five references to Manavas explained - references to Svayambhuva and Pracetasa Manu contained in the Mahabharata suggest that there were two works in verse on dharma and politics attributed to these or perhaps one work containing both, subsequently recast as the extant Manusmrti - only two views ascribed to Manavas in Kautiliya not found in extant Manusmrti - in the dharmasthiya section the only other authors or schools cited are Barhaspatyas and AuSanasas - none of the dharmasatras of Gautama and others are anywhere quoted by name - views cited on the question as to whom a child belongs ( to the begetter or to him on whose wife it is begotten ) can be traced to Baudhayana, Gautama and Vasistha - views of Acaryas cited in the Kautiliya - Kautiliya later than Gautama and Apastamba but earlier than extant Manusmyti - date of Kautiliya - it is certainly not later than 2nd century A.D. and not earlier than 325 ए. c. - schools named by Kautilya and also individual authors - views of Acaryas ' are quoted over fifty times and Kautilya differs in each case ~ meaning of ‘Acaryas’ - literature known to Kautilya - Sanskrit official language and the work mentions gunas of composition - Kautiliya agrees with Kamasitra in several respects - Dr. Jolly and Prof. Keith opine that both works composed about same time - points of difference bet- ween the two works - countries and peoples mentioned by Kautilya -- silks from Cina and blankets from Nepal - corporations of Licchavis, Vyjikas and others mentioned - meaning of ‘rijaSabdopajivinah’ (in श) - best breeds of horses - Mlecchas sold or pledged children - references to Buddhists and Ajivakas - weights to be made from stones/of Magadha and Mekala - doubtful whether Kautilya knew extant; text of Mahabharata - most of the stories cited as illustrations by Kawtilya occur in the Mahabharata, but some divergence exists in the case of Janamejaya, Mandavya ~ Kautilya’s knowledge of drugs and of rasa ( mercury )- references to shrines of Siva, Skanda &c.- traditio\nal date of 300 8, c. more likely to be correct than 3rd cen- xrii History of Dharmaéastra Lf tury A. D. approved of by Dr. Jolly and Winternitz - two commen- taries on Kautiliya, Nayacandrika of Madhavayajvan and Pratipada- paficika of Bhastasyamin - sutras attributed to Canakya - several niti collections in verse ascribed to Canakya are later than Kautiliya. Sec. 15 Vaikhanasadharmasatra : ... Pp. 105-107 Vaikhanasa is one of the six ऽप caranas of the black Yajur- veda mentioned by Mahadeva in his Vaijayanti on Satyasadha Srautasatra - Vaikhanasa occurs in Gautama, Baudhayana, Vasistha (9. 10) and Manu ( 6. 21 ) ~ Vaikhanasadharmaprasna divided into three prasnas - contents of the work = its age later than Gautama and Baudhayana - names more mixed castes than even some of the verse smrtis - devotion to Narayana looms very large in the work - Dr. Caland’s view that Manusmrti borrows from Vaikhanasagrhya not correct. Sec. 16 Atri: ... Pp. 107-110 Atri named in Manu (III. 16 ) ~ Atreyadharmasastra in nine adhyayas - summary of contents = form of Atridharmasastra - several works styled Atri -smrti- summary of Atrisarmhita printed by Jivananda - Atri quoted as an authority on adoption - Laghu Atri and Vrddhatreyasmrti - Mahabharata ( AnuSisana 65.1) quotes a verse of Atri. Sec. 17 44114; : . Pp. IIO-116 USanas wrote on politics, as Kautiliya shows - Mahabharata ( Santi 56. 29-30 ) refers to work of Usanas on politics - Ntipraka- sika on Sukra as arranger of rajasastra - An Ausanasa ned asastra in verse - contents - peculiar views of Usanas about offspring त inter- caste marriages - several verses common 10 14705 and Manu -' names the views of numerows writers on dharma ~ Haradatta and ४ Smrti- candrika knew a work of Usanas dealing । । ५ with all branches of 47102117012- Usanas 5111111 in verse - verses of Usaras on y avahara - Sul*raniti- sara edited by Oppert. ° 1 11 PP. 6 es Ap. Dh. S. (I. 6. 19 ) shows that Kanva and Kanva weyare two istinct authors - verses of Kanva quoted in Smrticandrika. 2d Sec. 18 Kanva and Kanva : Synopsis of contents xxili Sec. 19 Kasyapa and Kasyapa : ... 07. 107-118 Baudhayana ( Dh. 9, I. 11.20 ) cites # verse in which Kasyapa’s view is contained ~ there was a dharmasttra of Kasyapa -a Kasyapa smrti in prose contained in Deccan College Mss. - contents thereof- Smrticandrika includes Kasyapa among 18 upasmrtis. Sec, 20 Gargya: we 7. 119 A sttra work of Gargya on dharma cxisted - Gargya and Vrddha Gargya - a Gargisamhita on astronomy and astrology - Jyotir Gargya and Brhad Gargya. Sec, 31 Cyavana : p. 119 Seems to have written a sutra work on dharma, Sec. 22 Jatukarnya : ... Pp. 119-120 A verse of Vrddha Yajhavalkya names Jatikarnya as a dharma Sastrakara ~ quotations in verse in Mitaksara and later works, Sec. 23 Devala: ..+ =p. 120 A dharmasatra of Devala existed once = Mitaksara and other works also contain quotations in verse on acara, vyavahara, sraddha - this latter a later compilation = Devalasmrti in 90 verses on purifi- cations is also a late work ~ jurist Devala flourished about the same time as Brhaspati and Katydyana. Sec. 24 Paithinast : we) Pp, 121-122 An ancient sitrakira, as Visvariipa quotes his 505 = Dr. Jolly thinks he belongs to Atharvaveda - Paithinasi on sati, inheri- tance, on absence of untouchability under certain circumstances. Sec. 25 ,Budha : ve Pe 123 A\ sitrakara cited by Hemadri, Apararka, Kalpataru and Jimat- aan - a brief compilation and not very early in age. + 770. 123-126 A‘n ancient teacher of arthasastra mentioned in Kautiliya - Mahabl (- (Santi 59. 80-85 ) credits him with compression of vast wo\rk of Bralima on trivarga and mentions several of his views- Kamasu # speaks of Brhaspati as writer on artha - peculiar views of Sec. 26 "rhaspati : xxiv History of Dharmatastra Brhaspati according to Kautiliya - Brhaspati also wrote a prose work on vyavahara and prayascitta = probably the authors of the two are different - 700 verses on vyavahara ascribed to Brhaspati are quoted in the Mitaksara - this is an independent work composed between 300-500 A. ०. ~ smaller compilations in verse ascribed to Brhaspati - Barhaspatya Arthaéastra edited by Dr. Thomas is a late work. Sec. 27 Bharadvaja aud Bharadvaja : ,.. pp. 126-128 A Srautasitra and grhya of Bharadvaja exist - ViSvarapa’s work establishes existence of a ऽता work on dharma of Bharad- vaja - there was smrti in verse also attributed to Bharadvaja - Kauti- liya shows that Bharadvaja was an ancient author on politics - some views of Bharadvaja - Mahabharata on Bharadvaja - verses on vyava- hara attributed to Bharadvaja - this probably different from work on politics. Sec. 28 Satatapa : ,., pp. 128-139 A satra work of Satatapa on dharma dealing with prayascitta, Sraddha and acara must have existed - verses of Satatapa quoted in Mitaksara and other later works - this is ae different from smyti work - several verse compilations ascribed to Satatapa - Vrddha Satatapa and Brhat Saratapa. Sec. 29 Sumantu: .., 00. 129-131 A sutra work on दत्वा and prayascitta ascribed to Sumantu existed - Yajiavalkya and Parasara do not enumcrate jsumantu among expounders of dharma - Sumantu mentioned in Mahabharata and Bhagavata - verses from Sumantu on dharma are cited by. Aparar- ka ~ this isa different work = numerous verses on vyavahara | quoted from Sumantu in Sarasvativilisa. | Sec. 30 The Smrtis ; « a we 070. IK31-135 Two senses of the word smrti, viz. all orthodox ancient non- Vedic works ( such as Panini’s grammar, Srauta sutras, Maha bharata Manu, &c.) and (a narrower sense) dharmasastra - अप, a segurce of dharma according to Gautama and others - number of smrt is went ° ® oe 1 € . on increasing - Yajnavalkya enumerates twenty writers of — smrtis, Paragara 19 ~ Tantravartika speaks of 18 dharmasamhitas - Catur- Synopsis of contents XXV vimnsatimata gives views of 24 writers -a smrti called Sat - trirhsan- mata- Paithinasi enumerates 36 and so docs Apararka = Vrddha Gautama enumerates 57 ~ Viramitrodaya enumerates 18 smytis, 18 upasmrtis and 21 more- total number of smrtis about 100 - these are products of widely separated ages ~ some entircly in prose, some entirely in verse, some are mixed - chronology of smrtis presents perplexing problems - two or thrce smrtis go under the same name, g. Harita, Atri, Satatapa = sectarian zealots fabricate certain 51111115 ~ the prefixes laghu, brhat and vrddha applied to smrtis - well-known verses are ascribed to different authors, as authors quote from memory. Sec. 31 The Manusmrti : ... 77. 135-158 Numerous editions - Manu as the father of mankind in the - Reveda and other Vedas - Manu and the deluge in Satapatha-brah- mana - Manu in the Nirukta- Manu quoted as law-giver in Gautama, Apastamba and Mahabharata - introduction to Naradasmrti and Manu - how the Manusmntti is narrated - four versions of Svayam- - bhuva ऽव according to Bhavisyapurana = almost impossible to say who composed extant Manusmrti - Biihler’s theory that our Manu is a recast of Manavadharmasatra shown above to be unsustainable - the Manavagrhya differs from Manusmrti in several particulars - ‘\ inayakaganti of Manavagrhya and tests for selecting a bride not containe . our Manu - Mahabhirata distinguishes between Svaya- mbhuva Manu and Pracetasa Manu, former promulgating dharma- Sistra - tgese two works combined in the present Manu - extant Manu ; 112 chapters and 2694 verses - its style- contents of Manu - [प - @pyent of literature known to Manusmrti - the author of the Manusnifat is not the first legislator - age of Manusmrti - external evidenceitt Medhatithi’s is first extant commentary - Visvaripa quotes का verses - Sankara, Kumarila and Sabara refer to Manu - पनि the present text of Manu before him - Asvaghoga_ in his प ¢ ध-1 quotes several verses from ‘Manavadharma’ some ot which ajAgsound in our Manu = Ramayana ( Kiskindha 18. 30-32 ) containj}ajanu VIII. 318 and 316 - Manu attained present form long be¥pur and century A. ०. = there are earlier and later strata in Manu -?Y satradictary statements as to Brahmana marrying a sadra woman,. gout appropriate forms of marriage, about niyoga, about D xxvi | Hietory of Dharmaésaatra flesh-eating - Buhler’s conclusion is that cosomological and philoso- phical portions in rst and 12th books, rules about mixed castes and duties of castes in roth book are later additions - all additions made before 3rd century a. p.- Manusmrti has not suffered several recasts - quotations cited as Vrddha Manu and Brhan-Manu are later than Manusmrti - extant Manu older than Yajnavalkya - Manu mentions Yavanas, Kambojas, Sakas, Pahlavas and Cinas - extant Manusmrti composed between 2nd century B. c. and 2nd century a. ०. - rela- tion of Mahabharata and Manu - conflict of views between Mandlik, Hopkins and Buhler - Hopkins holds that there was a mass of float- ing verses ascribed to mythical Manu on which both Manusmrti and Mahabharata drew - Buhler says that the floating mass of verses was not all attributed to Manu - Manu mentions stories and names that occur in the Mahabharata but these names go into Vedic antiquities - Manu never names the Mahabharata, while the latter often refers ९0 ` ‘rajadharmas or Sastra of Manu’ or to ‘what Manu said’ - Both Hopkins and Bihler hold that the AnuSasanaparva and Santiparva knew a Manusmrti, but earlier books, whenever they speak of Manu, refer to floating mass of popular verses - this conclusion not correct - final conclusion, viz., long before 4th century ४, 6. there wasa dharmasastra in verse attributed to Svayarhbhuva Manu, there was another work on rajadharma attributed to Pracetesa Manu, that pro- bably there was one work, then between 200 B. ८. and, 200 +, De Manusmyti was recast - extant Mahabharata later than extant Manu- smrti ~ influence of Manu spread to Cambodia and orherscountries beyond India- Manu had several commentators, Mcdhatitk Govinda- raja, Kullaka, Narayana Raghavananda, Nandana and 7? },gacandra - Asahaya commented on Manu Udayakara is anotl : cy menta- tor and so is Dharanidhara Narayana flourished ह n I100- iti ^ 1300 A. D. ~ Raghavananda later than 1400 a. 9. - ए [anu and Brhan-Manu - explanation as to how these originate + i The Bes 1 he Sec. 32 Ihe two Epics : _ cien 158-160 a Ramayana is relied upon as a source of dharire 14103 ‘igh less frequently than the Mahabharata Ayodhyakanda ais M* 4‘ yakanda contain disquisitions on politics - age of the epics a ¢fore r problem more appropriate for a separate treatise - table in ०.0 | ४ where dharmasastra topics occur in the Mahabharata and the ab : yana. aif Synopsie of contents Sec. 3 3 2 / Puranas ॥ aco PPe I 60- for Puranas as a class of literature mentioned in Taittiriya Aran- yaka, Chandogya Upanisad, Gautama Dh. S., Mahabhasya - extant puranas are recasts made of older matcrial - some of the extant Puranas like Vayu earlier than 6th century a. D. - Names of principal 18 Puranas - 18 Upapurinas - Matsyapurana contains much dharma- Sistra material - Agnipurana contains disquisition on rajadharma and chapters 253-258 contain almost the whole of the vyavahara section of Yajfiavalkya - Garudapurina borrows about 400 verses from acara and prayascitta sections of Yajfiavalkya - chronology of Puranas passed over - Divergence as to the names of the principal 18 puranas and as to the; extent - Puranas very valuable for study of social and religious questions as to mediaval and modern India - Padmapurana divides 18 Puranas into three groups of sattvika, rajasa, tamasa and divides eighteen smrtis also in the same way - table showing which dharmasistra topics are dealt with in which purana. Sec. 34 The Yajnavalkyasmrti : pp. 168-190 an Yajnavalkya, a name most illustrious among Vedic sages - stories about strained relations between Vaigampayana and Yajna- valkya - Yajfiavalkya and Janaka in the Satapathabrahmana - Yajia- valkya, a great philosopher in the Brhadaranyaka - Yajfiavalkya srirti claims that the Aranyaka and Yogasastra were composed by the a r of the smrti- slight variation in the number of verses contained in Yajiiavalkyasmrti according to Visvaripa, Mitaksara and Apajrirka - arrangement of verses different in Visvarapa and Mitaksafa, particularly in the prayaécittakanda - readings of the two commerptators also differ - Agnipurana affords excellent check for considegation of text of Yajiiavalkya - Readings of Agnipurana com- pared with those of Visvaripa and the Mitaksara - conclusion is that the Agrpipurana represents a text midway between Visvarapa and that of the Mitaksara - So Agnipurana represents a text of Yajnaval- kya ६ about 900 A. 2. - total number of verses on vyavahara in the Agnipurana is 315, out of which the first 31 are not taken from Wajiiavalkya - almost all of these 31 taken from Narada- Garuddpurina (chap. 93 ) expressly says that the dharma promul- gated एह Yajiiavalkya was imparted therein - Garuda (chap. 93-106 xxvi ntains dharmagastra material taken from व्रता and prayaScitta sec- tions of Yajfiavalkya - Garuda (93-102) deals with icra and 102-106 with prayascitta-Garudapurina omits rajadharma section-of Yajna- valkya ~ only a few verses of Yaj. are repeated word for word, while a summary only is given of several verses - comparison of the text of the Garudapurana with Visvaripa’s text and that of the Mitaksari ~ Garudapurana represents text intermediate between Visvarapa and Mitaksara - are there different strata in Yajiavalkya ? text mainly the same from 700 a. p. and little evidence to show that the text of Yajnavalkya as we have it contains several strata - comparison of Yajiiavalkyasmrti with Manusmrti - close agreement in phrascology between the two ~ Yajiiavalkya usually tries to com- press Manw’s dicta - Yaj. adds Vinayakasanti and Grahasanti and ordeals, while Manu omits first two and cursorily, "fers to two ordeals ~ Yaj. silent on origin of world which we have in Manu =. style of Yajiavalkya ~ contents of smrti - literature known to Yaj- havalkyasmrti ~ enumerates 19 authors on dharma - close agree- ment between Visnu Dh. S. and Yajfiavalkya and between Kautilya and Yaj.- Manu and फते]. differ on several points and Yaj. represents a more advanced state of thought than Manu = Manu allows brah- mana to marry sadra girl, Yaj. docs not - Manu condemp: niyoga, प}. does not ~ same case with gambling - Yj. takes Vayakasanti from Manavagrhya = Yajfhavalkyasnirti in intimate relatiy to white Yajurveda and literature appurtenant to it ~ Yijnavaya closely agrees with Paraskaragrhya ~ Dr. Jolly’s theory that Y gavalkva’s work goes back to a dharmasitra of White Yajurveda ; without foundation = date of Yajhavalkyasmrti ~ Visvaripa separted from the smrti by several cencurics — probable date of Yajnavalky between 100 ए. €, and 300 A. D. ~ Lankavatirasutra ( githas 814-811) refers to Yajnavalkyasmrti ~ Dr. Jolly thinks that Yaj. shows acqiaintance with Greek astrology ~ Dr. Jacobi’s theory that naming >£ week days after plancts fist introduced by Grecks and borrewed by Indians = these theories untenable ~ Yaj. does not menticn week days, but only the nine planets (in I. 296 ) - Yaj. does not mention the zodiacal signs ~ he arranges the naksatras from Kretika to Bharani (1. 268 ) as the Taittiriyabrahmana does ~ ‘susthe ithdaw’ ५ ४३}. explained by Visvaripa without reference to zodi from Vedic time 1 1८411 signs- rom Vedic times naksatras divided into auspicious and inausphicious- Yajnavalkya’s reference to nanakas - Yaj. regards sight of » ycllow- Synopsis of contents rxix robed people as an evil omen - Dr. Jolly’s date of 400 a. ०. for Yajiiavalkya is far too late - there is a Vrddha-Yaj., a Yooa-Y3j., and a Brhad-Yaj. - Yoga-Yajiiavalkya existed much earlier than’ 800 A. D. as Vacaspatimisra quotes a halt verse from Yoga-Yij. and Apararka quotes profuscly from him - mss. of Yoga-Yajijavalkya in Deccan College collection in 12 chapters and 495 vereses and of Brhad-Yogi-Yajnavalkya in 12 chapters and 920 verses - Yoga-Yaj- havalkyaand Brhad-Yogi-Yajnavalkya of the mss. are entirely differ- ent works - several commentaries on Yajnavalkva, viz. of Visvardpa, Vijfancsvara, Apararka and Salapani. Sec. 35 Pardsarasmrti : ... 190-196 Y4j. mentions Paragara, but the extant ParaSarasmrti is pro- bably a recast of an older smrti = Garudapurina ( chap. 107 ) gives a summary of 39 verses of ParaSarasmrti = from Kautilya it appcars there was a work of ParaSara on politics - extant Paragara in 12 cha- pters and 592 verses deals with acira and prayaécitta alone - PariSara, au ancient name ~ Parisara mentions 19 smrti writers ~ contents of the smrti — ParaSara has peculiar views = authors cited by Parasara — views of Manu frequently cited - several identical verses in Manu and Pardsara - age of PardSarasmrti between 100-500 A.D. - 2 धिता रवतत ऽपित in 12 chapters and 3000 verses ~ : tthereof - it isa late work - Vrddha Pardgara quoted by Apararka. Naradasmrti : we Pp. 196-207 between Narada and Manu - printed Narada contains 1028 verses - about {00 verses of Narada quoted in digests = Visvartipa’s and ithi’s quotations from Nirada agree with printed Narada - rina chap. 253 contains thirty verses of Naradasmrti defining igghteen titles from rnadana to prakirnaka in the same order - ixxii History of Dharmaticira Sec. 41 Kargnajini : ० Ps 223 Sec. 42Caturvimsatimata : ,. 7. 223-225 Embodies in 525 verses the opinions of 24 sages - contents ~ quoted by Mitaksari and Apararka, but not by Visvarapa and Medhatithi- probably compiled about 8th or 9th century A. D. - Bhajtoji commented upon it. Sec. 43 Daksa: ,.. Pp. 225-226 Mentioned by ४३]. ~ Visvariipa quotes him several times - Aparirka quotesa prose passage - contents of printed Daksasmrti in 220 verses. Sec. 44 Pitamaha : : ,.. 7. 226-227 Quotations from Pitamaha occur mostly on vyavahara, parti- cularly ordeals - he treats of nine ordeals - 50 chalas enumerated by Pitamaha in which king took action without a complaint - views peculiar to Pitimaha, viz. 18 lowest castes, eight constituents of hall of justice, &c.- mentions Brhaspati - flourished between 400-700 A. D. A Sec. 45 Pulastya : .., 7. 228 An expounder of dharma named in a verse of Vilha Yajna- valkya - Visvaripa, Mitiksara, Apararka cite manjverses 00 ` alnika and Sriddha - Danaratnakara citesa prose passage : Pulastya- composcd between 4th and 7th century A. D. Sec. 46 Pracetas: =, , p. 229 A dharmasastra writer mentioned by Parasara, thigh not by Yaj. - prose and verse quotations cited by Mitaksara 4d Apa- rarka - a few prose quotations in Haradatta on Gautama ail Smrti- candrika - Vrddha Pracetas and Brhat Pracetas. Sec. 47 Prajapati : ++ PP229-230 Prajapati cited as authority by Baudhayana Dh. S, ( 174. 15 ) and Vasistha ( III. 47 &c. )- they mean probably Manu 4: com- pilation in 198 verses ascribed to PrajApati - Mit. and Aparaga and others quote Prajapati on asauca, prayascitta, éraddha, ordeals and vyavahara, Synopeis of contents xrxiii Sec. 48 Marict : +6 pp. 230-231 Quoted on ahmika, agauca, Sraddha and vyavahira by Mutak- sara, Apararka and Smrticandrika - recommends writing as essential for sale, mortgage, gift and partition of immovables. Sec. 49 Yama : ... 70. 231-235 Yama quoted in Vas. Dh. 9. ( 18. 13-15 and 19. 48 ) - various printed compilations in verse ascribed to Yama — Brhad Yama in 5 chapters and 182 verses— Visvarapa and others quote about a hundred verses of Yama on all topics including vyavahara—some of these found in printed text - a few prose passages of Yama quoted by Aparirka - AnuSdsanaparva 104. 72-74 quotes gathas of Yama - some views of Yama on vyavahira set out - Brhad Yama, Laghu Yama and Svalpa Yama Sec. 50 Laugaksi : ... Pp. 235-236 Mitaksara quotes verses on Agauca and prayascitta, while Apararka quotes prose and verse passages on sathskaras, vaiSvadeva &c. Secs $ Visvamitra : | ws =p. 236 _ Named by Vrddha Yajfiavalkya - verses quoted on all topics except vyavahara. Sec. §2 Vyasa : ... 70. 236-238 Printed compilation ascribed to Vyasa in 250 verses ~ contents - about two hundred verses of Vyasa on vyavahara cited in Apararka, Smrticandrika and other works = his doctrines closely agree with those of Narada, Brhaspati and Katyayana - some of his views on vyavahara set out - flourished between 200-500 A. D. ~ Apararka cites many verses from Vy4sa on sarhskaras, Sriddha &c. - probably Vyasa the jurist is identical with the latter = Gadya-Vyisa, Vrddha- Vyasa and Brhad-Vyaisa, Mahavyasa and Laghu Vyasa. Sec. 53 Saf-tritsan-mata : ww. pp. 238-239 This was a compilation like Caturvirhsati-mata - quotations from it cited in Kalpataru, Mitaksara, Smrticandrika and Apararka - Visvardpa,and Medhatithi do not mention it- date between 700- 900 A. ee no verse quoted from this on vyavahara. rxxfv History of Dharnatasira Sec. 54 Samgraha or Smrtisamgraha : ... 7. 239-242 Quoted by Mitaksara, Apararka and Smrticandrika on sevaral topics of dharma—quotations on vyavahira are many and important for history of Hindu Law = views of Sarhgrahakara and Dharesvara coincide in many respects and were criticized by Mitaksara - date of Samhgraha between 8th and roth centuries. | Sec. $ $ Sanivarta : ,,, Pp. 242-244 Mentioned as dharmasastrakara by Yaj. ~ cited on all topics of dharma by Visvaripa, Medhatithi, Mitaksara - Apararka quotes about 200 verses ~ some of his views on vyavahara - contents of printed Sathvarta in 230 verses ~ Brhat Sathvarta and Svalpa Sathvarta. Sec. 56 Hartta: ,., Pe 244 Verses from Harita on vyavahara deserve special treatment - some of his views set out, e. g. definition of vyavahara, four aspects of vyavahara, importance of writing, defects of plaint and reply, pro- tection of long possession, when title by itself is decisive against long possession, five kinds of sureties, treatment of erring wives ~ his date between 400-700 A. D. Sec. §'7 Commentaries and Nibandhas : s+ 77. 246-247 ` DharmaéSiastra literature falls into three periods, the first from 600 B.C. to 100 A. ०. being the period of the dharmasutras and of the Manusmrti, the 2nd from 100 A. ०. to 800 A. D. of Yajnavalkya and other smrtis and third from 700 to 1800 of commentators and authors of digests ~ first part of this last period contains commen- taries ~ digests written from 11th century ~ no hard and: fast line between commentaries aud digests - these to be trea of in chronological order as far as possible. Sec. 58 Asahdya : + pph 247-251 Portion of his bhasya on Narada ( up to verse 21 0 abhyu- petyasusrisa ) published hy Dr. Jolly ~ Kalyanabhatta reWyised it- exact felationship of Kalyanabhatta’s revision to Original bot clear, but he took great liberties - Kalyanabhatta was encousfaged by „ . ॥1 Synopsia 6f contents । ९५५ KeSavabhatra ~ Vigvaripa on Yaj. (III. 263-264) mentions Asa- haya by name and quotes latter’s explanation of Gautama 22. 13. - Haralata of Aniruddha speaks of bhasya of Asahaya on Gautama - from a passage of Sarasvativilasa it appears that Asahaya commented on Manu also- Medhatithi on Manu 8. 156 quotes Asahiya - Mitaksara mentions the views of Asahaya - date of Asahaya be- tween 600-750 A, D.— a few views of Asahaya set out, viz. definition of daya, succession to Sulka of a woman, succession to a childless brahmana. Sec. 59 Bhartryajna : oe Pp. 251-252 An ancient Bhasyakara mentioned by Medhatithi (on Manu 8. 3) ~ his views cited by Trikandamandana - he wrote bhasya on Katyayana Srautasitra and Paraskara grhyasatra ~ probably he com- mented on Gautamadharmasutra - flourished about 800 A. 9. Sec. 60 Visvarapa : pp. 252-264 His commentary called Balakrida on Yaj. published at Trivan- drum - Mitiksara refers to it in introductory verscs and on Yj. (I. 80 and III. 24 ) ~ printed com. of Visvaripa on vyavahara por- tion of Yaj. is very meagre - literature referred to or quoted by Visvariipa - most of the quotations from Svayambhuva found in extant Manu, but not so those ascribed to Bhrgu ~ quotes prose passages of Brhaspati on vyavahara ~ quotes a verse of Visalaksa on politics and refers to arthagastras of Brhaspati and Uéganas - Kautilya not named, yet Vigvaripa scems to have had his work before him - Vigvariipa’s work saturated with doctrines of Parvamimamsa = quotes Sabara and Slokavartika - quotes his own karikas on Yaj. I. 7. and other places ~ his philosophical views identical with Sarhkaracirya’s- Dr. Jolly’s view that citations of Vigvaripa in the Smrticandriki on certain points not traced in the printed Balakrida examined and shown to be incorrect ~ some citations of Visvaripa’s views in Grhastharatnakara and Hemadri not found in printed text of Visva- 77108 - points in which Visvaripa and Mitiksara differ set out - Visvaripa must have flourished between 750 and 1000 A. D. = If Vigvardpa identical with Suresvara, pupil of Sankara, then he flou- rished between 800-850 = reasons for identity sct out ~ Mandana and rrrvi History of Dharmatistra Suresvara not identical ~ Bhavabhtiri and Umbeka identical, but not same as Suresvara ~ 2 digest called ViSvaripanibandha by another Visvarapa = a Visvaripasamuccaya mentioned by Raghunandana. Sec. 61 Bharuci : ... pp. 264-266 His views quoted by Mitaksara on Yaj. I. 81 and II. 124 - 8 Bharuci mentioned as an ancient teacher of ViSsistidvaita system by Ramanujacirya in his Vedarthasarhgraha ~ Bharuci the philosopher is probably identical with Bhiruci the jurist - from notices in the Sarasvativilasa Bharuci seems to have commented on the Visnu- dharmasttra - Bharuci and Mitiksara disagreed on numcrous points. Sec. 62 Srikara : ... pp. 266-268 Views of Srikara set out = first writer to propound the view that spiritual bencfit was the critcrion for judging of superior rights to succession ~ probably a Maithila - difficult to say whether he wrote a commentary or an independent digest - flourished be- twcen 800-1050 A. D. Sec. . ८1001110 : ०, = Pp. 266-275 Wrote an extensive commentary on Manu - printed bhasya corrupt in 8th, 9th and rath chapters - reference to king Madana having restored Medhatithi’s bhisya explained - Dr. Jolly says Medhatithi was a southerner - this is wrong = He wasa_ northerner and probably a Kashmirian - literature known to Medhatithi - smrtis quoted by him ~ mentions Asahaya, Bhartryajfia, Yajvan, Upadhyaya, Rju, Visnusvamin = Mcdhatithi saturated with Parva- mimamsi ~ his reference to Siriraka explained ~ Medhatithi and Sankaricdrya - peculiar views of Medhatithi set out = wrote Smrti- viveka from which he quotes verscs in his Manubhiasya ~ date of Medhatithi - flourished between 825-900 A. D. | Sec. 64 Dharesvara Bhojadeva : ... Pp. 275-279 Mitaksara (on Yaj. II. 135 and III 24) mentions: views of Dharegvara ~ Dharesvara is co be identified with king = deva of Dhara - works on numerous branches of knowledge attributed to Bhoja of Dhara such as on Poetics, Rajamrginka (on astr@nomy ) a.com. on Yogasatras - Suddhikaumudi of Govindananda / mentions Synopsis of contents rxxvif Rajamartanda of Bhoja on sradgha - Mitaksara and Dharesvara dis- agree on several points, €, g. on the question whether ownership was known from व alone, on the mcaning of ‘duhitarah’ in पवर. - on other points the two agree - Bhupalapaddhati or simply Bhapala or raja refers toa work of Bhojadeva - Bhujabalabhima of Bhoja- raja quoted in Tithitattva and Ahnikatattva of Raghunandana as dis- tinct from the Rajamartanda - Bhoja reigned from 1000 to 1055 A. D.- Dharmapradipa of Bhoja is the work of another Bhoja, who was son of Bharamalla and king of Asapura ~ it was written betwecn 1400 1600 A. D. Sec. 65 Devasvamin : ... pp. 279-281 Said by Smrticandrika to have composed a digest of smrtis ~ Narayana, commentator of Aévalayanagrhya, relies on bhasya of Devasvamin = he composed a digest on dcara, vyavahara and asauca - Smrticandrika quotes his views on the meaning of Yautaka, on the meaning of duhitarah in Y4j.,on Manu 9. 141-A Devasvamin commented on Pirvamimarsiasutras and on the Sarhkarsakinda - dificult to say whether he is identical with the writer on dharma- sastra - Devasvamin flourished about 1000-1050 A. D. Sec. 66 Jitendriya : ... 281-283 He is frequently quoted by Jimttavahana in his three works - Jitendriya held that the wives of a person whether scparated or joint succeeded to their deceased husband - no early writer other than Jimutavahana cites him = flourished between 1000-1050 A. D. Sec. 67 Balaka : -.. pp. 283-284 Mentioned by Jimatavahana, Salapani, Raghunardana = seve- ral views of Balaka sct out - flourished before 17100 A. D. Sec. 68 Balarnapa : ,,, Pp. 284-286 The opinions of Balarapa are cited in the Smrtisara and Vivada- candra - also in the Vivadacintamani - he wrote at least on vyava- hara and Kala - Balaka and Balarapa are probably identical - Bala- rlipa is certainly earlier than 1250 A. D. - Vivadacandra once speaks of ‘author of Balarapa’, suggesting thereby that Balarapa wasa work, rerviii History of Dharmatasira Sec. 69 Yogloka : ,., pp. 286-287 Known only from works of Jimatavahana and Raghunan- dana - Jimatavahana only rarely agrees with him and generally criticizes him and taunts him with being a logician merely ~ Brhad Yogloka and Svalpa Yogloka ~ Yogloka wrote at least on vyavahara and Kala - flourished between 950-1050. Sec. 70 Vijnanesvara : + pp. 287-293 The unique position of the Mitaksara on account of being es- teemed as of paramount authority by British Indian courts - the several names of the Mitiksara - quotes a host of smrti writers and six predecessors as authors of commentaries and digests - personal history of Vijfanesvara - profound student of puirvamimarhsa- date of Vijianesvara - between 1070-1100 ~ out of many commentators of the Mitiksara three famous = peculiar doctrines of the Mitaksara - seems to have been author of Asaucadagaka also = sevcral commen- taries on ASaucadasaka by Harihara, Kaghunatha and Bhattoji - Vijnanegvara not the author of Trithsat-Sloki ~ Narayana, a pupil of Vijnianesvara, wrote Vyavahara-siromani. Sec. 71 Kamadbenu : . Pp. 293-296 An ancient digest not yet discovered - quoted by Kalpataru, Haralata, and other works - Gopala, the author of Kamadhenu - Aufrecht’s view that Sambhu isthe author of Kamadhenu wrong - Sambhu is a nibandhakara on dharma cited by Smrticandrika and Hemadri - Mr. Jayasval wrongly ascribes Kamadhenu to Bhoja - probable date of Kamadhenu between 1000-1100 A. D. Sec. 72 Halayudha : ,,, ?7. 296-301 A jurist quoted by Kalpataru, Smrtisdra and other works - he flourished between 1000-1100 a. D. - he was probably a Maithila ora Bengal writer - Halayudha, author of Abhidhanaratnamala, Kavirahasya and Mrtasaijivani (com. on chandab-sitra ), is dif- ferent - he hailed from the Deccan and flourished between 940-995 A. 2. ~ another Halayudha, author of Brahmanasarvasva - personal history of this Halayudha = judge of Laksmanasena, king of Bengal - Halayudha’s literary activity between 1175-1200 .A. D. = another Halayudha, author of Prakasa, commentary on the graddhakalpasatra of Katyayana - he flourished between 1150 and 1500. ०, Synopsis of contents xxxix Sec. 73 Bhavadevabhatta : ... Pp. 301-306 Author of Vyavahiaratilaka - also of Karmanusthanapaddhati or Dagakarmapaddhati - contents of latter - another work is Prayaé- cittaniripana - light on personal history of Bhavadeva in inscription at Bhuvanesvara - he was a great builder of temples and tanks - flourished between 1050-1150 A. D. - Bhavadeva and Pradipa - other authors on dharmaSastra named Bhavadeva. Sec. 74 Prakasa : -. Pp. 306-308 An ancient work on vyavahiara, dina, ériddha &c. - whether an independent digest is doubtful - was probably a commentary on Yajnavalkyasmrti composed between 1000-1100 A. 9. - Maharnava- prakasa, Smrtimaharnava or Maharnava quoted by Heméadri are all names for the same work - probably Prakasa and Smrtimaharnava- prakasa are identical. Sac. 75 Parijata: ... pp. 308-309 Several works on dharma end in Pirijata- an ancient work called Parijata quoted by Kalpataru - it dealt with at least vyavahara, dana - composed between 1000-1125 A. D. Sec. 76 Govindaraja vs PP. 309-315 Wrote com. on Manusmrti anda work called Smptimaifjari - personal history of Govindaraja - he is not to be identified with king Govindacandra of Benares - Kullika frequently criticizes Govinda- raja - contents of Smrtimafijari - date of Govindaraja between 1040-1140 A. D. Sec. 77 The Kalpataru of Laksmidhara : oe Pp. 315-318 An extensive work which exercised great influence over early Mithila and Bengal writers - personal history of Laksmidhara - work divided into fourteen kandas - their arrangement - contents of vyava- hara, rajadharma and dina kandas - date of Kalpataru between | I100-1150 A. D. - Candesvara borrowed extensively from Kalpataru. Sec. 78 Jimatavahana : ... pp. 318-327. He is first of the three great Bengal writers on dharmasastra - Only three works known, Kalaviveka, Vyavaharamatrka and Daya- xi History of Dharmatastri _ bhaga - these three parts of a projected digest called Dharmaratna - object and contents of Kalaviveka - works quoted in Kalaviveka - profound study of Parvamimarnsa displayed therein - contents of Vyavahara-miatrka - works quoted in it- Dayabhaga most famous of his works and of paramount authority in Bengal on Hindu Law - contents of Dayabhaga ~ doctrines peculiar to Dayabhaga - authors and works named in the Dayabhaga - personal history of Jimutava- hana - his date - divergent views - literary activity lies between 1090-1130 A. 9. - Did Jimitavahana know the Mitaksara ¢ Sec. 79 Apararka : spp. 328-334 Wrote a voluminous commentary on Y4jnavalkyasmrti - authors and works quoted by Apararka - studiously avoids naming his predecessors who were writers of digests ~ peculiar views of Apararka - evidence to show that Apararka knew the Mitiksara - date of Apararka - Simrticandrika criticizes Apararka - Apararka was a Silahara prince - inscriptions of Silaharas - commentary written about 1125 A. D. Sec. 80 2’radipa : s+ PP. 334-335 An independent work on vyavahara, Sraddha, suddhi and other topics - betwern 1100-1150 A, D. Sec. 81 Smptyarthasara of Sridhara : oe PP. 3357337 Contents of ~ personal history of Sridhara - authors and works rclied on as authorities - Sridhara probably composed another larger work - date between 1150-1200 A. D. Sec. 82 Aniruddha : ... PP. 337-340 An carly and eminent Bengal writer - wrote Haralata and Pi- trdayita alias Karmopadesinipaddhati - contents of Haralata and of Pitrdayita - authors and works named in them = personal history of Aniruddha - flourished in 3rd quarter of 12th century. Sec. 83 Ballalasena : vee PDP. 340- 341 Compiled at least four works, Acdrasagara, Adbhuthsagara, Danasigara, Pratisthasagara - subjects dealt with in Danatsigara - Adbhutasagara left incomplete and finished by his son 7 ksmana- sena - Danasagara valuable for checking the text of the Auranas - Synopsie of contents ‘xii literary activity in 3rd quarter of 12th century, as Danasigara was composed in sake rogr - Aniruddha was guru of Ballalasena. Sec. 84 Harihara : ' ,.. PP. 341-343 A writer on vyavahara- he flourished before 1300 a, 9, - Harihara composed commentary on Paraskaragrhyasitra - this _Ha- rihara flourished between 1150 and 1250 a. 9. = whether he was pupil of Vijnanesvara -a Harihara comments on Asaucadasaka - jurist Harihara probably identical with bhasyakara of Paraskara - several Hariharas known. Sec. 85 Smrticandrika of Devanuabbatta : ... PP. 3437347 An extensive digest - printed text deals with ‘samskara, Acira, vyavahiara, Sraddha and asauca - he wrote on prayascitta also - name variously written - profusely quotes Smrtikaras, 600 verses of Katyayana alone on vyavahara being quoted - authors and works named ~ author a southerner = contents ~ points in which Mitak- sara and Smrticandrika differ - date between 1150 and 1225 A. D.- several works named Smrticandrika. Sec. 86 Haradatta : ००, 7} 347-353 His fame high as a commentator ~ his Anakula on Apastamba- erhya, Anavila on Asvalayanagrhya, Mitaksara on Gautamadharma- sutra, Ujjvala on Apastambadharmasitra and a com. on the Apas- tambamantrapatha ~ explains grammatical peculiarities at great length = he was a southerner = a great devotce of Siva - tradition says Rudradatta and Haradatta are identical = Haradatta on widow’s right of succession - interesting information from Haradatta ~ date, a difficult problem = between 1100-1300 A. Haradatta, commen- taror of dharmasastra works, is identical with Haradatta, author of Padamanjari - Haradatticarya mentioned in Bhavisyottarapurana and Sivarahasya is probably the Haradatticarya cited in Sarvadarsanasarh- gtaha ~ Hariharataratamya and Caturvedatatparyasarngraha are works ascribed to Haradatta. Sec. 87 Hemadri : ० 7. 354-349 He and Madhava the two outstanding daksinatya writers on dharmagastra ~ his Caturvarggciasimeminig.a huge work of an ency- ४, D. F xifi History ef Dharmatastra clopedic character = projected to contain five sections = printed parts comprise vrata, dana, Sraddha and kala-Hemadri a profound student of Parvamimarsé - predecessors named by him ~ personal history of Hemadri- his connection with Yadavas of Devagiri- genealogy of the Yadavas - Caturvargacintdmani composed about 1270 A. D.- com. on Saunaka’s Pranavakalpa and a Sriddhakalpa according to Katyayana are attributed to him - Vopadeva, a friend and a protegee of Hemadri - references to Hemadn’s work in grants. Sec. 88 Kullakabhatta : ,.. 77. 359-363 A famous commentator of Manusmrti - he drew largely upon Medhatithi’s bhasya and Govindaraja- Sir William Jones on Kullaka - authors and works quoted by him - personal history - he -wrote Smrtiviveka, of which Agaucasagara, Sraddhasagara and Vi- vadasagara were parts - contents of Sraddhasagara - this is full of Parvamimamsa discussions - date of पापा uncertain - flourished between 1150-1300 A. D. Sec. 89 Sridatta Upadhyaya : wee PP. 363-365 One of the earliest nibandhakaras on dharmasastra from Mithila - contents of Aciradarga and authors quoted therein - his Candogah- nika - his Pitrbhakti - authors quoted in it - his’ Sriddhakalpa - his Samayapradipa - contents of the work - flourished between 1200- 1300 A. D., probably about 1275-1300 a. n. - another Sridattamisra, a Maithila writer, who flourished towards end of 14th century. Sec. 90 Candesvara : ,.„ pp. 366-372 Most prominent among Maithila nsbandhakaras - compiled ex- tensive digest called Smrtiratnakara in seven sections on dana, krtya vyavahara, suddhi, puja, vivada and grhastha - contents of Krtya- ratnakara, Grhastharatnakara, Danaratnakara, Vivadaratnakara and other ratnakaras- he alsc compiled Krtyacintamani, the Rajaniti- ratnakara, Danavakyavali and Sivavakyavali - contents of Rajaniti- ratnakara - he drew principally upon five viz, Kamadhenu, Kalpa- taru, Parijata, Prakasa and Halayudha - authors and works quoted - personal history of Candeévara - genealogy - he was minister of Harisithhadeva of Mithila and later of Bhavega and weighed himself against gold in 1314 A. ४, - literary activity between 1314-1370 A. D. Synopsis of contents xliif Sec. 91 Harinatha : ... PPo 372-374 Author cia digest called Smrtisdra - names numerous autho- rities - contents - flourished in first half of r4th century - several works styled Smrtisara. Sec. 92 Madhavacarya : ,, 7}, 374-381 The most eminent of daksinatya writers on dharmaéastra - two works on dharmaSastra deserve special notice, viz. Parasara Madha- viya and Kalanirnaya - authors and works quoted in them - contents of Kalanirnaya - family and personal history of Madhavacarya - his - brother Sdyana - Madhava founded Vijayanagar in 1335 A. 9. - pedigree of Vijayanagar kings - the two works were composed be- tween 1340-1360 a, D.- literary activity of Madhava Vidyaranya between 1330-1385 a. ए. - Madhava Vidyaranya different from Madhava mantrin who was governor of Banavase and Goa - several commentaries of Kalanirnaya., Sec. 93 Madanapala and Visvesvarabhatta : os 381-389 Four works attributed to Madanapala, a great patron of learn- ing like Bhoja, viz. Madanaparijata, Smrtimaharnava or Madanama- harnava, Tithinirnayasara and Smptikaumudi - Madanaparijata really composed by Visvesvarabhatta - contents of Madanaparijata - Maharnava ascribed to Mandhata, a son of Madanapala - principal topics of the work - Tithinirnayasira - Smrtikaumudi deals with dharmas of Sadras - contents - all the above four works probably composed by VisveSvarabhatta - Subodhini, com. on Mitaksara by VisveSvarabhatta is a leading authority in Benares school of Hindu Law - pedigree of Madanapala- other works on astronomy and medicine attributed to Madanapala ~ date of Madanapala, between 1300-1400 A. D. - Madanavinodanighantu composed in 1431 of Vi- krama era i. 6, 1375 A. D. Sec. 94 Madanaratna : + 0). 389-393 An extensive digest on dharmasastra, variously styled - seven uddyotas of it on samaya, dcara, vyavahara, prayascitta, dana, suddht, santi - contents of uddyotas on samaya, dana, and Santi - work composed under Madanasithhadeva, son of Saktisirnhadeva - pedigree of the family - Madanasishha called together four learned men, tliv History of Dharmaéastra Ratnakara, Gopinatha, Visvaniatha and Gangadhara, and entrusted composition of work to them - date of Madanaratna between 1350- 1500, probably about 1425-50. Sec. 95 Snlapani : vs PP» 393-396 His authority in Bengal is next only to Jimitavahana’s - Dipa- kaliki, commentary on Yajfiavalkya, his earliest work - holds archaic views on inheritance- his Smrtiviveka, of which fourteen parts ending in ‘ viveka’ arc known - Durgotsavavivcka is amongst his latest works - Sraddhaviveka is his most famous work = authors and works named by him - personal history little known - exact age uncertain - flourished between 1375-1460 A. D. Sec. 96 Rudradhara : w+ Pp. 396-398 A Maithila writer - wrote Sriddhaviveka, Suddhiviveka, Vra- tapaddhati and Varsakrtya, the first being the most famous of his works - flourished between 1425-1460 A. D. Sec. 97 Misarumisra : .-. pp. 398-399 Wrote Vivadacandra - contents - work composed under orders of queen Lachimadevi, wife of prince Candrasithha of Mithila - flourished about 1450 A. D. Sec. 98 Vacaspatunisra ; ... 77. 399-405 The foremost nibandhakira of Mithila - his Vivadacintamani of paramount authority on matters of Hindu Law in Mithila -a voluminous writer - several works of his styled Cintamani on acira, ahnika, krtya, tirtha, dvaita, niti, vivida, vyavahara, Suddhi, stidracara, Sriddha - works named by him -a group of his works ends in ‘ nirnaya’ viz. Tithinirnaya, Dvaitanirnaya, Mahadananir- naya, Vivadanirnaya, Suddhinirnaya, - he also contemplated writing seven works styled Maharnava on kytya, व्रताय, vivada, vyavahara, dana, suddhi and pitryajfia - other works of his- Sraddhakalpa or Pitrbhaktitarangini his last work - personal history of Vacaspati - connected with king Bhairava and his son Ramabhadra - genealogy of Kamesvara kings - Vacaspati flourished between 1425-1480 a. D. - philosopher Vicaspati different. Sec. 99 Nerstthaprasida : -.. Pp. 406-410 An encyclopxdic work - divided into 12 sections called ‘sara’- the author’s name variously given as Dalapati or Daladhiga - personal Synopeis of contents xlv history - writers and works named - contents of the work - flourish- ed between 1400-1510 A. D., probably about 1490 to 1510, Sec. 100 Prataparudradeva : ... 410-414 He was king of the Gajapati dynasty in Orissa and composed Sarasvativilasa - pedigree and history of family - purpose and con- tents of Sarasvativilasa -works quoted - composed between 1497-1539 A. D. ~ Foulke’s theory about date not acceptable = the Pratapamar- tanda or Praudhapratapamartanda of Prataparudradeva. Sec. 101 Govindananda : -. PP. 414-415 Author of Danakaumudi, Suddhikaumudi, Sriddhakaumudi and Varsakriyakaumudi anda com. called Arthakaumudi on the Suddhidipika of Srinivasa and a com. Tattvarthakaumudi on the Prayascittaviveka of Salapani- literary activity between 1500-1540 A. D. Sec. 102 Kaghunandana : ,,. PP. 416-419 Last great writer of Bengal on dharmasastra - wrote an encyclo- paedia called Smrtitattva in 28 sections - names over 300 authors and works - 28 tattvas enumerated ~ other works besides these 28- wrote also com. on Dayabhaga - personal history - authors and works quoted - flourished between 1500- 1575. Sec. 103 Nérayanabhatta : .., Pp. 419-421 The most famous member of the Bhatta family of Benares - personal history - born in 1513 A. D. - among his works are Antye- stipaddhati, Tristhalisetu, Prayogaratna, and com. on verses of Kalamadhava - literary activity between 1540-1570 A. D. - Narayana author of Dharmapravrtti different. Sec. 104 Togarananda : ,., PP. 421-423 An encyclopaedia on dharma, several parts of which were call- ed Saukhya - authors and works quoted - personal history of Todar- amalla - he died in 1589. Sec. 105 Nandapandita : ,.. 00. 423-432 A voluminous writer on dharmaégastra - author of com. on Paragarasmrti and on the Mitaksara of VijianeSsvara - his Sraddha- र History of Dharmatastra ` kalpalata - his Suddhicandrika, a com. on the Sadasiti - his work styled Smrtisindhu and a summary of it styled .Tattvamukta- vali - his Vaijayanti, a com. on Visnudharmasitra - his agreements and disagreements with Mitaksara - Dattaka-mimarhsa, his most famous work - it is regarded by British Indian courts and Privy Council as standard work on adoption - his views set out - personal history - he had various patrons - his thirteen works - Vaijayanti composed in 1623 A. D. Sec. 104 Kamalakarabhatta : vee PP. 432-437 Grandson of Nardyanabhatta - personal history - composed more than 22 works on several 5051795 - about a dozen works on dharmagastra, the Nirnayasindhu, Sudrakamalakara and Vivada- tandava being most famous - he meant all the works on dharma- SAstra to be parts of a digest called Dharmatattva - contents of Purta- kamalakara, Santiratna, Vivadatandava, Sadrakamalakara and Nirna- yasindhu ~ the last, one of his earliest works composed in 1612 A. D. and so his literary activity lies between 1610-1650 A. D. Sec. 107 Nilakanthabhatta : ... pp.438-440 Grandson of Nariyanabhatta and son of Sankarabhatta - perso- nal history - his work Bhagavantabhaskara divided into twelve maytkhas composed in honour of Bhagavantadeva, Bundella chief- tain-also wrote Vyavaharatattva-estimate of his qualities asa writer - his Vyavaharamayakha is of paramount authority on Hindu Law in Gujerat, Bombay Island and North Konkan - his literary activity ~ flourished between 1610-1650 - divergence of views between the cousins Kamalakara and Nilakantha.. Sec. 108 The Viramitrodays of Mitramiira : ves 00. 440-446 Viramitrodaya, a vast digest composed by Mitramigra on all topics of dharmasgastra - sections called prakdgas - contents of the printed prakasas on Laksana, ahnika, vyavahara, tirtha, puja, sarh- skara, rajaniti ~ highly controversial work = generally follows Vijna- neSvara, but at times severely criticizes him = a work of high autho- rity in Benares school of modern Hindu Law - Mitramigra also wrote a commentary on Yajnavalkyasmrti = personal history = account Synopsis of contents xlvii and pedigree of his patron Virasirhha ~ meaning of title ‘Viramitro- daya’ ~ his literary activity lay in the first half of the 17th century. Sec. 109 Anantadeva : ,,, PD. 447-453 Composed a vast digest called Smrtikaustubha on sarhskara, acdra, rajadharma, dana, utsarga, pratistha, tithi and sarhvatsara - Samskdrakaustubha is most popular work - contents of Sarnskara- kaustubha - portion of it on adoption called Dattakadidhiti - sum- mary of important views on adoption - contents of Abdadidhiti and Rajadharmakaustubha - pedigree of his patron’s family - Anantadeva wrote at command of Baz Bahadurcandra - Anantadeva was great~ grand-son of Ekanatha, a great Marathi poet and saint = his younger brother Jivadeva ~ literary activity between 1645~1695. Sec. 110 Nagojsibhatta : ... Pp. 453-456 His learning of an enclyclopaedic character - wrote standard works on grammar, dharmasastra, yoga, &c. - total number of works about 30 - wrote about ten works on dharmasistra - personal history ~ his patron Rama of the Bisen family ~ pedigrees of Bhatfoji Diksita and Nagoji’s connection with Bhattoji- literary activity between 1700-1750 A. D. Sec. 111 Balakrsna or Balambhatta : ,.. Pp. 456-462 Laksmivyakhyana or Balambhatti is a com. on the Mitaksara of Vijnanegvara - Balambhatti favours latitudinarian views about the ‘rights of women = estimate of Balambhatti according to judicial decisions - author of Balambhatti somewhat of an enigma - intro- ductory verses about the authoress Laksmidevi - real author Bala- krsna, son of Vaidyanatha Payagunda, who was a pupil of Nagoji- bhatta - Balakrsna also wrote Upakrtitattva, Dharmasastrasathgraha - Vaidyanatha, the commentator of Alarnkara works, different from Vaidyanatha, Payagunda, the father of Balambhatta - flourished ०६ tween 1730-1820 A. D. Sec. 110 Kasinatha Upadhyaya : ... pp. 463-465 Composed extensive work called Dharmasindhusara - leading work in Deccan now on religious matters ~ subjects of the work - zivili History of Dharmasastra "personal history - his other works - Dharmasindhu composed in 1790°91 ^. D. Sec. 113 Jagannatha Tarkapaicanana : ,.. pp. 465-466 Among digests compiled under the British the Vivadabhan- garnava of Jagnnatha is the most famous - Colcbrooke translated it in 1796 - topics treated of in it - Jagannatha died in 1806. Sec. 114 Conclusion : pp. 466-467 Motives actuating writers on dharmasastra- their contribu- tion to culture - their defects - their admirable and useful work. HISTORY OF DHARMASASTRA. 1. Meaning of Dharma. Dharma is one of those Sanskrit words that defy all attempts at an exact rendering in English or any other tonguc. That word has passed through several vicissitudes. In the hymns of the Reveda the word appears to be used either as an adjective or a noun (in the form dharman, generally neuter ) and occurs at least fifty-six times therein. It is very difhcult to say what the exact meaning of the word dharma was in the most ancient period of the vedic language. The word is clearly derived from root dy (to uphold, to support, to nourish). In a few passages, the word appears to be used in the sense of ‘ up- holder or supporter or sustainer’ as in Re. 1. 187.1' and X. 92.22. In these two passages and in Rg. X. 21.3) the word dharma is clearly masculine. In all other cases, the word is cither ~uviously in the neuter or presents a form which mav ४५. either masculine or neuter. In most cases the meaning of dharman is ‘ religious ordinances or rites’ asin Reg. J. 22. 18, V. 26. 6, भा. 43. 24, 1X. 64.1 &c. The refrain ‘ tani dharmani prathamanyasan’ occurs in Rg. I. 164, 43 and 50, X. 90. 16. Similarly we have the words ‘ prathama dharma’ (the primeval or first ordinances ) in Rg. III. 17. 1. and X. 56. 3 and the words ‘sanata dharmani (ancient ordinances ) occur in Rg. III. 3. 1. In some passages this sense of ^ religious rites’ would not suit the context, e. g. in IV. 53. 34, ४, 63. 75, VI. 70. (५, VIL. 89. 57. In these passages the meaning scems to be ‘fixed principles or rulesof conduct’. In the Vajasaneyasarhhita the above senses of the word dharman are found and in Il. 3 and V. 27 we have the words ‘ dhruvena dharmana’. In the same Samhita | = ee प स) त ` ष ए a ^> ~ ०७७ मक 1 पितु नु स्तो महो Alor areas | This occurs in शरङ्कयजर्वेद 34.7 9 इमम॑जस्पाममये' अकृण्वत धमौण॑ममिं विद्धस्य साध॑नम्‌ । सवे धर्माणं आसते जुहूमिं : सिश्चतीरिव । 4 आप्रा रजसि दिव्यानि पार्थिवा श्लोकं देवः रणते स्वाय धमणे | $ धर्मणा मिन्नावहणा विपश्विता बता रक्षेथे असुरस्य मायया । 6 areal वहैणस्य धर्मणा विष्कमिते अजरे मूरिरेतसा । 7 aftef य्व धमो' युयोपिम मा नस्तस्मादेनसो देव Ties: ah- + History of Dharmasistra the form ‘dharmah’ (from dharma ) becomes frequent, €. g. X. 29, XX. 9. The Atharvaveda contains many of those verses of the Reveda yin which the word dharman occurs, e. g. VI. 51. 3 ( acittya a tava dharma yuyopima ), VII, 5. 1 ( Yajiena yajhamayajanta ) 1.27. 5 (trint pada vicakrame). In Al. 9.17 the word ‘dharmah’ 8 to be used in the sense of ^ merit acquired by the performance religious rites’. In the Aitareya-brahmana, the word dharma seems to be used in an abstract sense”, viz. ‘ the whole body of re- uBIOUs duties’. In the Chandogya-upaniyad'? (2. 23) there is npr ess ving esi i won dm of dharma, one is (constituted by) sacrifice, study and charity (i. ५. the stage of house-holder ) ; the second ( 8 constituted by ) austerities (i. ८. the stage of being a hermit ); the third is the brabmacarin dwelling in the house of his teacher and himself stay with the family of his teacher till the last; all making, = ` + 10 the worlds of meritorious men; one who abides these 91181, “attains immortality. It will be scen that in this firmly in brabn र as ei en ee passage the word ‘ dhav. 0 ध व i” duties of the agramas. The foregoing brief 1 how the word dharma passed through several transitions of Meany and how ultimately its most prominent significance came to be ‘the privileges, duties and obligations of a man, his standard of conduct as a member of the Aryan community, as a member of one of the castes, as a person in a particular stage of life.’ It is in this sense that the word seems to be used in the well-known exhortation to the pupil con- rained in the ‘Taittirrya-upanigad (1. 71) ‘speak the truth, practise ( your own ) dharma &e? Trisin the same sense that the Bhaga- vadgita uses the word dharma 1) the oft-quoted verse ` svadbarme nidhanam sreyah.” The word iscmployed in this sense in the dharmagasira literature. ‘The Manusmrti ( 1. 2) tells us that the nie ~ eee oe ee ee ae ee ate ~ 8 ऋतं सत्यं aT UF अमो धर्मश्च कमं च । मूते भविष्यदुच्छिषटे वाय GRAIG बट ॥ 9 धम॑स्य गोक्ाजर्नति तमभ्युरछषटनेरवविदभिषेकष्यननेनयाच।मिभन्नयेत । ए. बा. णा. 17; The form dharman occurs vide also a similar passage at A. Br, VIII. 13. huvrihi compounds, e.g. in the Upanisads and in classical Sanskrit in Ba अनुच्छित्तिषमौ ५ the चुहृद्‌रण्यकोपनिषद्‌ and the ७०५८५ धर्मादनिच्‌ केवकात्‌ (षा. V, 4. 124). | 10 तयी quegear यज्ञोध्ययने दानमिति प्रथमस्तप एवेति द्वितीयो बहमचायोचार्थकुलवासी त॒तीयोत्यन्तमा्मानमाचायंकुलेवसाद्यन्‌ सर्वं एते पुण्यलोका भवन्ति बह्मसंस्थोमतत्वमेति । Vide वेद्‌न्तसूज III. 4. 18-80 ‘or a discussion of this passage. : 1, Meaning of Dharma 3 sages requested Manu to impart instruction in the dharmas of all the varnas. The Yajnyavalkya-smriti (I. 1) employs it in the same sense. In the Tantra-Vartika!! also we are told that all the dharma- siitras are concerned with imparting instruction in the dharmas of varuas and asramas. Medhatithi commenting on Manu ५१ that the expounders of smrtis dilate upon dharma as five-fold, ९.1 arnadbarina, asrama-dhaima, varnasrama-dbarma, naimitttkadbar na (such as prayascitta ) and gunadharma (the duty of a crowned king, whether Ksatriva or not, to protect )*. It is in this sense that the word dharma will be taken in this work. Numerous topics are comprehended under the title dharmasastra, but in this work prominence will be given to works on dcara and vyavabara ( law and administration of justice ) It would be interesting to recall a few other definitions of dharma. Jaimini®3 defines dharma as ‘a desirable goal or result that is indicated by injunctive (Vedic) passages.” The word dharma would mean such rites as are conducive to happiness and are enjoined by Vedic pas- ages. The Vaisesikastitra' defines dharma as ‘that from which results happiness and final beatitude.’ There are several other more or less one-sided definitions of dharma such as ‘ahithsa paramo dharmah’ ( AnuSasanaparva 115. 1. ), ‘anrsarhsyam paro dharmah’ (Vanaparva 373. 76), ‘acarah paramo dharmah ’( Manu I. 108 ). Harita defin- ed dharma as ‘ $rutipramanaka's* ( based on revelation ). In the Buddhist sacred books the word dharma has several senses. It often means the whole teaching of Buddha (S.B.E. Vol. X. ‰. रशणा). Another meaning of dharma peculiar to the Buddhist system is ‘an element of existence, i. €. of matter, mind and 01८6516." The present work will deal with the sources of dharma, their contents, their chronology and other kindred matters. As the == = = =, 14 ‹ सवधमंसूज्ाणां वणश्रमधमापद्शित्वात्‌ › ए. 297 12 हरदत्त ० गा. ध. सू 19. land गोवन्द्राज ० मनु 2.25 give the same fivefold classification. 13 चोदुनालक्षणोा्थो घमः \ प्‌. मी. सू. 1. 1.2. 14 अथातो धम ष्याख्यास्यामः | यतोभ्यद्यनिःश्रयससिदः स धमः । वेरेषिकसूच्र. 1 अथातो धम व्याख्यास्यामः । श्रुतिप्रमाणका धमः । श्रतिश्च दिवधा र्वादकी तान्खिकी च | quoted by PET on मनु, 2.1. 16 Vide Dr. Stcherbatsky’s monograph on ‘ the central conception of Buddh- ism’ (1923 ) p. 73. * ^~" ~ ~~ ~~ ~--- ~~ - ~ ~~ ~~~ 4 Flistory of Dharmasistra material is vast and the number of works is extremely large, only a few selected works and some important authors will be taken up for detailed treatment. More space will be devoted to comparatively early works. 2. Sources of Dharma. The Gautamadharmasttra’? says ‘the Veda is the source of dharma and the tradition and practice of those that know it (the Veda ).’ So Apastamba'® says ‘ the authority (for the dharmas ) is the consensus of those that know dharma and the Vedas.’ Vide also the Vasisthadharma-sitra’? CI. 4-6). The Manusmrti?e lays down five different sources of dharma ‘the whole Veda is ( the fore- most ) source of dharma and ( next ) the tradition and the practice of those that know it (the Veda ); and further the usages of virtuous men and self-satisfaction.’ Yajnhavalkya?! declares the sources ina similar strain ‘ the Veda, traditional lore, the usages of good men, what is agreeable to one’s self and desire born of due deliberation—- this is traditionally recognised as the source of dharma.’ These passages make it clear that the principal sources of dharma were con- ceived to be the Vedas, the Smrtis, and customs. The Vedas do not contain positive precepts (vidhis) on matters of dharma in a con- nected form ; but they contain incidental references to various topics that fall under the domain of dharmasastra as conceived in later times. Such information to be gathered from the Vedic Literature is not quite as meagre as is commonly supposed. In another place?? I have brought together about fifty Vedic passages that shed a flood of light on marriage, the forms of marriage, the different kinds of sons, adoption of a son, partition, inheritance, sraddha, stridhana. To take only a few examples. That brotherless maidens found it difficult to secure husbands is made clear by several Vedic passages. 17 वेदो धममरलमू । तदा च स्म्तिशीले । गो. ध. चू. 1. 1-9. 18 धम॑ज्ञसमयः प्रमाणं वेदश्च । आप. ध. सु, 1.1. 1. 2. 19 र तिस्म॒तिविहितो धमः । तदलामे शिष्टाचारः प्रमाणम्‌ । शिष्टः पृनरकामात्मा । 20 वेदैससिलो धममूलं स्मतिरलि TATA । आचारश्येव साभूनामात्मनस्तुष्टिरष च ॥ मनु- स्मावे Il. 6. ५ श्रतिः स्मनिः सद्‌; चारः स्वस्य च AT । सम्यकूसङकल्पजः कामो भर्ममूलमिदं स्मृतमु ॥ याज्ञ. 1. 7. 92 Vide JBBRAS. vol, XXVI (1922), pp. 57-82, न~ ~^ - ~~ Ly = = = CE 2. Sources of Dharma 5 ‘Like (a woman ) growing old in her parents’ house, - goray to thee as Bhaga from the scat common to all?3’. Vide also ति I 124. 73 IV. $, $ and Atharvaveda I. 17.1 and Nirukta III. 4-5) | These passages constitute the basis of the rules of the dharmasitras and the Yajfiavalkya-smrti against marrying a brotherless maiden?'. “his bar against marrying a brotherless maiden seems to have been ५ € to the fear that such. a girl might be an appointed daughter (putrike ti) and that a son born of such a girl would be affiliated to his motherxs, father. This custom of putrika is an ancient onc and is alluded ८ ` in the Rgveda, according to Yaska?’. Reveda X. 85 15 a very in- teresting hymn as regards marriage ; verses from it are used even to this day in the marriage ritual.7° It shows that in the remote Vedic age the marriage rite resembled in essence the Brahma form as des- cribed in the Dharmasttras and Manu.?* But the purchase ofa bride (i. e. what is called Asura marriage in later literature ) was not unknown in the Vedic age. A passage of the Maitriyaniyasamhita CI. 10. 11 ) is referred to in the Vasisthadharmastitra?®> in this con- nection, viz. ‘she who being purchased by the husband’. The Gandharva form is hinted at in the words?” ‘when 2 bride 15 fine- looking and well adorned, she seeks by herself her friend among men’. The importance of the aurasa son was felt even in the remote Vedic ages. ‘Another ( person ) born of another's loins, though very pleasing, should not be taken, should not be even thought of (as to be taken in adoption’ Y. The Taittiriya-saihita (VI. 3. 10. 5) propounds the well-known theory of the three ततऽ. The story 23 अमाजूरिव पित्रोः सच। सती संभानाद्‌ा सदृसस्स्वामिये भग॑म्‌ । ऋष्वेद्‌ 17. 17, 7. ४५ अरोगिणीं भ्रात्‌मतीमसमाना्षगःजज।म्‌ । याज्ञ, 1. 59; vide also मनु 111. 11. 25 Vide Rgveda 111. 31. 1, and Nirukta ITT. 4. 26 e. g. the verse aoe सं।भगत्वाय ( wae X. 85. 36). Vide जाप, ग.सू II. 4. 14, a7 गो. ध. सू IV. 4; ay, घ, सू. 1.11. £ जाप. ध्‌. सू TY. 5. 11. 17; मनु II]. 27. 28 वसिष्ठधर्मसूश्र {. 36-37; note भाप. ध. स. II. 6. 13. 11 where the word ‘purchase’ is tried to be explained away and also प मी सू VI. 1. 15. (क्रयस्य ध्ममान्न- त्वम्‌ › ४ भद्रा वधू्मधनि areal: सयं स। मित्रं वनुते जनेः चित्‌ । aE X. 27. 12. 30 नदि ममायाशणः स्रवो अन्योदर्यो मन॑स मन्तवा उ । waa VIL 5. 8. 31 जायमानो Fanaa जायते बरह्मचर्येण ऋषिभ्यो यज्ञेन देवेभ्यः भरजया पितुभ्यः | History of Dharmatistra of Sunahgepa fa the Aitareya-brahmana ( VII. 3 ) suggests that a son ॥ Yadopted even when there was an aurasa son. The Taittitiva-sdshihta (VIT. 1. 8. 1) tells the story of Atri who gave an f sory in adoption to Aurva. ‘The Ksetraja son of the Dharma- stitras ys often referred to in. the earliest Vedic literature. ‘ What ( sagfificer ) invites vou ( Asvins ) in his house to a bed 45 a widow doef a brother-in-law or a young damsel her lover. The Taittiri- yasfimbhita makes it clear that a father could distribute his wealth anong his sons during his own Jife time । Manu divided his property among his sons’ & ८.३; Another passage of the same Saiibita seems to suggest that the eldest son took the whole of the father’s wealth ‘therefore people establish their eldest son with wealth "+. Even in the Vedic ages the son excluded the daughter from inheritance ‘a son born of the body does not give the paternal wealth to ( his ) sister}. A passage of the Vatttiriva-sarhnhita is relicd upon by ancient and modern writers on dharmasastra for the exclusion of women in general from inheritance ‘therefore women being destitute of streneth take no portion and speak more weakly than even a low person3®, The Reveda culogises the stage of studenthood and the Satapathabrahmana speaks of the duties of the Brahmacarin such as not partaking of wine and offering every evening a 5411140 10 11147. The ॐ को वीं शयत्रा विधन॑व द्वरे मर्य न योषां BoA सधस्थ आ । Hag उ. 40. £. 33 मनुः पुत्रेभ्य दायं व्यभजत्‌ | न. सं IIJ.1 9 4. This 0288886 15 relied upon by aq. ध, a, 11. 6. 14. 11 and gy, घ, सू. If. 2. 2. 34 नस्भाञ्ज्य् पत्र धनन निरवसाययन्नि | त. स, Il. 5. 2. 7. This passage is referred to by ang, ध. सू IT. 6.14.12 and ay. ध, सू 1.2. 5. 35 “न जामये लान्वो' रिक्थम।रक" Hag LIT. 31. 2. Vide निर्क्त 11. 5 for explana- tions of this verse. ॐ तस्मात्कियो निगन्द्रिया अदायादीरापि पापत्वं उपास्तितरं वदन्ति । ते. सं. VI. 5. & 2. Here tha portion spoken of 18 really that of the soma beverage. Vide बो. ध, सू II. 2. 47 for reliance on this passage and also हरदत्त ( on आप. ध. सू. Ii. 6. 14. 1 ) and स्षरस्वर्त।विद्ासं (९९. 21 and 336). Vide also grqquygqy, IV. 4. 2.13 for a similar passage. 3 mead च॑रति वध्वः स देवानां भवत्येकमङ्गम्‌ । HIG >. 109. 5. The qaqenm, 4 ( XI, 5. 4, 18 ) reads ‘ तदहः । न बरह्मचारी सन्मध्वश्नीयात्‌,. Compare मनु IT- 177. Vide MATa, XI. 3. 3, 1 for samsdh. । 2, Sources of Dharma 7 Taittiriya-sarhhita (VI.2. 8. 5) relates} how Indra consigrred Yaits to wolves (or dogs) and how Prajapati prescribed a Prayascitts for him [he Satapathabrahmana speaks of the king and the learned Br-ahmana as the upholder of the sacred ordinances.39 The Taittiriyasamhita says ‘therefore the Suadra is not fit for sacriticet?.’ The Aitigreya Brahmana tells us that when a king or other worthy guest cor people offer a bull or a cowt!. The Satapatha-brahmana speaks ot ८५८ study 15 yazéa and the Taittiriya-aranyaka‘? enumerates प. five yajias, which area prominent feature of the Manusmrti. Thi ® Reveda eulogises the vifts of a cow, horses, gold and clothes# \nother passage of the Revedatt ( thow art like a prapa in a desert ) is relied upon by Sabara on Jaimini (I. 3. 2) and by Visvarapa on Yajnavalkya as ordaining the maintenance of prapas ( places where water is distributed to travellers). The Reveda condemns the selfish man who only caters for himself, The foregoing brict discussion will make it clear that the later rules contained in the dharmasutras and other works on dbarma- sdstra had their roots deep down in the most ancient Vedic tradition and that the authors of the dharmasulras Were quite justitied in look- inv up to the Vedas as a source of dharntia. But, as said above, tie Vedas do not profess to be formal treatises on dharma; they contain only disconnected statements on the vartous aspects of deurma ; We have to turn to the smrtis fora formal and connected treaunent of the topics of the dharmasdstra. 33 इन्द्रा यतीन्‌ BTR RA WAZ | मेध।{नि।ध ( on म्न XI 49 ) quotes this Vide ए a, 7. ‰४ ४५१ ताण्डुचमहाब;, 81.4, 13. 4. 17 and wqaqqe 11.9.38 ५५ पष च MATA हवं gl HAT yaaa । शतपथ V- 4.4. 9 40 तस्मच्छरद्र। यज्ञऽनवङ्कुपः । त. सं. VIL 1.1. i लंयभवाद्‌) मनुष्यराने आगनन्वास्मन्वाहप्यक्षाणं वा हृतं वा क्षदुन्त णवमस्मा एतन्क्ष- दन्ते यदुभि मथ्नान्य । ए. वा. 1.15. Compare वृरसिष्ठधमेसूनत्र 4 8. 42 प्रश्च वा एते महायज्ञाः सतान प्रतायन्ते सतति सन्तिषठन्ते देवयज्ञः पितृयज्ञो भूतयज्ञ मनुष्ययज्ञो बह्मयज्ञः । ते. आ. 2.10. 1. 13 उच्चा दिवि दृक्षिणावन्तो Heme saa: सह त सूर्येण । goa अम्रतत्वं भ॑जन्तं वासोदाः सोम प्र तिरन्त आय; ॥ wae X. 107. 2 14 धन्वन्निव प्रपा आ त्वमग्न इयक्षवे पूरवे प्रत राजन्‌ । ऋम्वेद्‌ >. « 1. © sae भवति केवलादी । ऋगवेद 2111. 6. Cod History of Dharmasastra When Dharmasastra works were first composed of Sunahgep son could !Mportant question is to find out when formal treatises वता began to be composed. It is not possible to give a definite only sore! to this question. The Nirukta (Ill. 4-5) shows that long sutras Pre Yaska heated controversies had raged on various questions of heritance, such as the exclusion of daughters by sons and the rights =f the appointed daughter (putrika). It is very likely that these dis- yasfeussions had found their way in formal works and were not merely confined to the meetings of the learned. The manner in) which Yaska writes suggests that he is referring to works in which certain Vedic verses had been cited in support of particular doctrines about inheritance!®. [८5 further a remarkable thing that in connection with the topic of inheritance Yaska quotes a verse, calls it a Sloka and distinguishes it froma [६.47 This makes it probable that works dealing with topics of dharma existed either composed in the sloka metre or containing Slokas. Scholars like Biihler would say that the verses Were part of the floating mass of mnemonic verses, the exist- ence of which he postulates without very convincing or cogent arguments in his Introduction to the Manusmrti (9. B. FE. vol. 25 Intro.xc). If works dealing with topics of dharma existed before Yaska, a high antiquity will have to be predicated tor them. The high antiquity of works on dharmasastra follows from other weighty con- siderations. It will be seen later on that the extant dbarmasitras of Gautama, Baudhayana and Apastamba certainly belong to the period between 600 to 300 B. C. Gautamat® speaks of dharmasastras and the word dharmasastra occurs in Baudhayana also (IV. 5.9). Baudha- yana speaks of a dharmapathaka (1. 1. 9.). Besides Gautama quotes in numerous places the views of others in the words ‘ ityeke’ (९. g. II. 15, II. 58, UN. 1, IV. 21, Vil. 23). He refers to Manu’? in one place and to ‘ Acaryas’ in several places ( III. 36, IV. 18 and 23) ree ee » (चको 46 अथेतां जाम्या रिक्थग्रःतिषेध उद्‌। हरन्ति ज्येष्ठं पुञिकाय। इत्येके | Vide 8.8. ४. Vol 25, LXI (footnote) for Buhler’s view refuting Roth’s opinion that the whole discussion in the Nirukta is an interpolation. 47 तदेतद्क्लोकाभ्यामभ्युक्तम्‌ | अब्गदङ्गात्सम्भवसि..-स जीव ass शतम्‌ ॥ अविरेषेण पुत्राणां दायो भवति धर्मतः । मिथुनानां विसर्गादो मनुः स्वायम्भुवोबवीत्‌ ॥ 48 गौ. ध, सू, 9.21 ‹ तस्य च व्यवहयरो वेदो धर्मशाखाण्यङ्गानि उपवेदाः प्राणम्‌ १ The words पुथभ्धर्मविदङ्षयः in गो. ध. सु. 28.47 appear to refer to students of मशाख. | 4 जी प्रथमान्यनिर्दश्यानि मनुः । गो. ध. सू. 1.7. 8. When Dharmaégastra works were first ८01208९८ Baudhayana mentions by name several writers on dharma, v.s for him. janghani, Katya, Kasyapa, Gautama, Maudgalya and Hanta. ghmana tamba also cites the views of numerous sages such as those 0 aihita Kanva, Kautsa, Harita and others. There is a Vartika which sp:areya of Dharmasatrase. Jaimini speaks of the duties of a Sidra as | 5 down in the dharmasastras'. Pataijali shows that in his days ५/१ sittras existed and that their authority was very high, being next t the commandments of Gods?.. He quotes verses and dogmas thats have their counterparts in the dharmastitras. The foregoing dis cussion establishes that works on the dharnisdastra existed prior to Yaska or at least prior to the period Goo-300 B.C. and 11 the 2nd century B.C. they had attained a position of supreme authority in regulating the conduct of men. [11 this book the whole of the extant literature on dharnu will be dealt with as follows :- -First come the dharmasutras, some of which like those of Apastamba, Hiranyal:esin and Baudhayana form part of a larger Satra collection, while there are others like those of Gautama and Vasistha which do not form part of a larger collec- tion ; some dharmasitras Vike that of Visnu are, in their extant form, comparatively Jater 1) date than other sutra works; some sutra works like those of Sankha-Likhita and Paithinasi are known only trom quotations. Then carly metrical smrtis like those of Manu and Yajnavalkya will be taken up for discussion; then later versified 51111115 like that of Narada; there are many smrti works like those of Brhaspati and Katyayana that are known only from quotations. The two epics, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, and the Puranas also have played a great part in the development of the Dharma- sastra. The commentaries on the smrtis, such as those of Visvarupa, Medhatithi, Vijnanesvara, Apararka, Haradatta will be next passed 50 agit च तथा । Vide महाभाष्य vol. 1, p. 242, 91 sq धमंशखत्वात्‌ । ष्‌. मी. सु. ४.7. 6. 52 नेवभ्वर आज्ञ।पयति नापि ध्म॑सूजकाराः पटान्ते अपवाद्‌रत्सर्गा बाध्यन्तामिति । AI भाष्य vol. I, ए. 115 and vol. IT, p. 365. पतलि quotes आभ्राश्च सिक्ताः पितरश्च प्रीणिता$ (vol. {. ए. 14) for which vide आप, ध. q. 1. 7. 20.3 तयथान्ने फला निमिते छाया. गन्ध इृत्यनूत्पदेते. पतजजकि 5०४४ ‘aes न pase मासि न विक्रेतव्यम्‌ ' and लोमनखं स्पष्टा शाचं कतंन्यम्‌ ( vol. 1 p. 25). MLD, 2. 10 History of Dharmafistra ° [| [ in oe and then the digests on dharma such as the works of Hemadtri, Todaramalla, Nilakantha and others. 1145 very difficult to settle the chronology of the works on dhgtmagastra, particularly of the carlicr ones. The present writer Ades not subscribe to the view of Max Miller (H. A. 5. L. p. 68 ) and others that works in continuous Anustubh metre followed आप्य works’3. Our knowledge of the works of that period is so ‘meagre that such a generalisation is most unjustifiable. Some works in the continuous अज metre like the Manusmrti are certainly older than the Visnudharmasutra and probably as old as, if not older than, the Vasisthadharmasttra. One of the earliest extant dharmasttras, that of Baudhayana, contains long passages in the Sloka metre, many of which are quotations and even Apastamba has a considerable number of verses in the sloka metre. This renders it highly probable that works in the sloka metre existed before them. Besides a large literature on dharma existed in the days of Apastamba and Baudhayana which has not come down to us. In the absence of that literature it is futile to dogmatise on such a point. 4. The Dharmasutras. It seems that originally many, though not all, of the dbarma- satras formed part of the Kalpasutras and were studied in distinct sutracaranas. Some of the extant dharmasutras here and there show in unmistakable terms that they presuppose the Grhyasutra of the carava to which they belong. Compare Ap. Dh. 9.1. 1. 4. 16 with Ap. Gr. 9. 1. r2 and Ul. $; and Baud. Dh. S. I. 8. 20 with Baud. Gr. S. If. 11. 42 Cand other satras );1. The Dharmasttras belonging to all sutracaranas have not come down to us. There is no dharmastitra completing the Asvalayana Srauta and Grhya sitras; no Manavadharmasutra has yet come to light, though the 53 VideS. B. E vol. 11, 0. 1, but see Goldstticker’s Panini ( pp. 59, 60, 78) against Max Miller and Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar’s Carmichael lectures for 1918, pp. 105-107. 54 अपिमिदध्वा परिसिप्रह्य समिध अषद्ष्यात्‌ साय प्रातर्यथोपदेशम्‌ । आप. ध. a. 7.1. 4.16; अ्िमिद्वा प्रागमदमेरभ परिस्तृणाति । अप. ग, 1. 12 and हृष्ममदूया- aed BATRA | अष. गु. UL 9 ; शेषमुक्तमश्काष्येमे ( al. ध. सू. 11. 8. 20) refersto a, गु, II. 11. 42; Hq SBzA AMAIA याज्ञिकस्य वृक्षस्य दण्ड (बो ध. स I, 2.16) 7९618 ४० qj ग, II. 0. 66 and other places where पलाश is one of the याल्लिक trees. 4. The Dharmasiitras Manava Srauta and Grhya siitras are extant ; in the same w: the Sankhayana Srauta and Grhya satras, but no SankhayanGOver™- stra. It is only in the case of the Apastamba, Hiranyalet4 by Baudhayana Sitracaranas that we have a complete kalpa rains with its three components of Srauta, Grihya and Dharma siitras Tantravartika of Kumirila contains very interesting observations © this point. It tells us that Gautama ( dharmasiatra ) and sri d (grhyastitra)) were studicd by the Chandogas ( Samavedins ) Vasistha (dharmasutra ) by the Rgvedins, the dharmasatra of Sankha-Likhita by the followers of Vajasaneya-sarhhita and the stitras of Apastamba and Baudhayana by the followers of the Tait- tiriya Sakhass. The Tantravartika ( p. 179 ) establishes it as a sid- dhanta Con Jaimini [. 3. rr) that all the dharma and grbya sutras are authoritative for all Aryan people. From this it appears that although originally all stitracaranas might not have possessed dharmasttras composed by the founder of the caraya or ascribed to him, yet gradually certain dharmasutras were specially taken over or appropriated by certain carayas. As the dbarimasntras were mostly concerned with rules about the conduct of men as members of the Aryan community and did not deal with ritual of any kind, all dharmasatras gradually became authoritative in all schools. The dharmasatras were closely connected with the grhyasatras in subjects and topics. Most of the Grhyasittras treat of the sacred domestic fire, the divisions of Grhya sacrifices, the regular morning and evening oblations, sacrifices on new and full moon, sacrifices of cooked food, annual sacrifices, marriage, piuhsavana, jatakarma, upanayana and other sasmkaras, rules for students and sndtakas and holidays, 5124५14 offerings, madhuparka. In most cases the Grihya- 5111215 confine themselves principally to the various events of domestic life ; they rarely give rules about the conduct of men, their rights, duties and responsibilities. ‘The dharmastitras also contain rules on some of the above topics such as marriage and the samskaras, 55 तन्जवार्तिक ?. 119 ‹ पुराणमानवतिहासम्यतिरिक्तगानमवासेष्ठशङ्कलि खतह रानापस्तम्ब- बोधायनदिभिणीतधमशाखाणां गृद्यम्न्थानां च प्रतिशाख्यलक्षणवतपतिचरणं पाटम्यव- स्थोपलभ्यते । ATA MAM AMAA छन्द्‌गरेव परिगृहीते । वासिष्ठं यहचरेव शच्च लिश्चितोकतं च वाजसनेयिभिः । भपस्तम्बचोधायनयि तोतिरीयिरेव प्रतिपन्ने । एष तत्र तन्न गृद्यव्यवस्थाभ्युपगमादि alae विचारयितव्यम्‌ । किं तानिं तेषामेवं प्रमाणान्युत सर्वेषाम्‌ । (ong, मी. चु. 1. 3. 11). Oe ee History of Dharmasiastra “ahmacarya and snatakas and holidays, on éraddha and in revicy ka. It 15 therefore not to be wondered at that in the Hemad 0 the topics of the duties of the Brahmacarin the house-holder, of atithis and of sraddha are meagrely ly as compared with the Apastamba-dharmasutra. The dharma- प very rarcly describe the ritual of domestic life; they merely Such upon it; their scope is wider and more ambitious; their 4incipal purpose is to dilate upon the rules of conduct, Jaw and custom. Some stitras are common to both the Apastamba-grhya and the dharma 45५. Sometimes the grhyastitra appears 10 refer to the dharmasdtra’?, ‘There are certain. points which distinguish the dharmastitras (the more ancient of them at least) from. smrtis. (2 ) Many dharmastitras are cither parts of the Kalpa belonging 10 cach sutracarana or are intimately connected with the grhyastitras. (0) The dharmasttras sometimes betray some paruality in their Vedic quotations for the texts of that Veda to which they belong or in the caranas of which they are studied. (८) The authors of the Colder) dharmastitras do not claim to be inspired seers or superhuman beingsi*, while the other smritis such as those of Manu and Yajnavalkva are ascribed to Gods like Brahma. (५) The dharimasulras are in prose or 111 mixed prose and verse; the other smrus are inverse. Ce) Phe language of the dharmasutras is gencrally more archate than that of the other smrtis. Cf) The dharmasatras do not proceed upon any orderly arrangement of topics, while the other smritis Ceven the oldest of them, viz. Manusmrriti ) arrange their contents and treat of the subjects under three principal heads viz, dedra, vyavabara and prayaseitfa.((g ) Most of the dharmasitras are older than most of the other smrtis. 5. The Dharmasutra of Gautama. This has been printed several times (there is Dr. Stenzler’s edition of 1876. the Calcutta edition of 1876, the Anandasrama 56 ° & पशे GUS! AANA... इत्यवर्णसंयोगेनेक उपदिशन्ति | भप.गृ. IV. 17. 15. 16 and 4qig. 7. 1. 1, 2. 38. 57 ९. 8. the आप. a, Says ^ मास श्रद्रस्यपरपक्ष यथोपदेशं कालाः ' (णा. 21. 1. ). This has in view अव. ध्‌, सु. Tl. 7. 16. 4-22. rer ज 58 Compare ग, ध, I. 3-4and अष, ध, q I. 2. 5. 4. ‘AEAISTT SAVY जायन्ते नियमालिकमान्‌ ? and अप. घ. सु. 613.9 agedieg प्रयुजानः सीदत्यवरः. 6. The Dharmasitra of Gautama 13 edition with the commentary of Haradatta, and the Mysore Govern- ment edition with the bhasya of Maskari; it was translated by Buhler in S. B. E., Vol. If. with an introduction ). The Anandasrama edition of 1910 which is incorrect in a few places (५.९. 21. 7) has been used in this work. ‘This dharmasttra is, as we shall sce, the oldest of those we have. The Gautama-dharmasutra was specially studied by followers of the Simaveda (sce note $ $ above). The com- mentary on the Caranavytha tells us that Gautama was one of the nine subdivisions of the Ranayaniya school of the Samaveda. A teacher Gautama is mentioned frequently in the Latyayanasrautastitra (५. ९. 1. 3. 3 and I. 4. 17+) and in the Drahyayanasrauta (९. 2.1. 4. 17, IX. 3. 15 ) of the Samaveda. The Gobhilagrhya (II. 10. 6) which belongs to the Samaveda cites Gautama as वा = authority. Therefore it is not improbable that a complete Gautamasttra mbody- ing Srauta, Grhya and Dharma doctrines once cxisted. There are other indications pointing to the close connection of the Gautama- dharmasttra with the Simaveda. Chapter 26 of the dharmasitra about Kricchra penance is the same, almost word for word, as the Samavidhinas? Brahmana (1. 2, Burnell’s ed. ). = Among the purifi- catory texts (21 in number ) mentioned in (का. Dh. S. (19. 12) there are nine that are Samans. The mention of the five utterances ( ° Vvahrtis’)) resembles the number in the Vyahrtisima®? though the order is different. It is however to be noted that Gautama is ageneric name. In the Kathopanisad, both Naciketas CII. 4. 15, 11. 5.6) and his father (I. 1. 10) are styled Gautama. In the Chandogyopanisad there is a teacher Haridrumata Gautama (1५. 1) ~~-- हि । 99 There are however considerable divergences; e.g. गौ, ध, सू 26. 10-12 are | “आपो हि Bia तिसमिः पाविच्रवतीभिर्माजंयीत oral: शुचयः पावका इत्यष्टाभिः । अथोदकतपणम्‌ | नमोहमाय Kc. while the सामविध,न is (आपद्ि्ठीयाभिरथःद्‌कतर्पणं ARIAT १, ग्‌. I, स्‌ 26.12 contains many additions. Wherever there is divergence, it is generally Gautama that amplifies the passages found in the सामविधान. । 60 गो. ध. सू. 1. 52 ओपूवां भ्याहूतयः पञ्च सस्यान्ताः. Again in गो. ध. सू, 25. 8 we “Af ° [|] क have प्रर्तिषद्धुवाद्मनसापचारे व्याहृतयः पश्च सत्यान्ताः; While in गौ. 28. 8. the five व्याहूतिः seem to be भ्‌ः, भुवः, स्वः, तपः, सत्यं. A हरदत्त remarks the five व्याहृतिऽ in व्याहुनिसाम ५० मुः, मुवः, स्वः, सत्यं, पुरुषः. The व्याहति are gene- rally declared to be seven ( ते, आ, 10. 28.1), the first three heing styled महाग्याहूति (vide मनु II. 81.) 14 History of Dharmasastra According to Haradatta the dharmasitra has 28 chapters. The Calcutta edition adds one chapter on Karimavipdka after chapter 19. In many places Gautama unmistakably refers to his own previous dicta; ९. g. Yathoktam va ( 23. 16 ) refers to 23. 10; 23. 26 refers to 17. 8-26; 17. 18 refers to 15. 18. The following are briefly the contents of the Gautamadharmastitra :—r. Sources of dharma, rules yabout interpretation of texts, time of Upanayana for the four varyas, the appropriate girdle, deer skin, cloth and staff for each Varna, rules about Sauca and Aacamana, method of approaching the teacher; 2 rules about those not invested with sacred thread, rules for the brahmacarin, control of pupils, period of study ; 3 The four 4éramas, the duties of brabmacarin, bhikgsu, and vaikhanasa; 4 rules about the house-holder, marriage, age at time of marriage, eight forms of marriage, sub-castes ; 5 rules about sexual intercourse on marriage, the five preat daily sacrifices, the rewards of gifts, madhuparka, method of honouring guests of the several castes; 6 rules about showing respect to parents, relatives Cimale and female) and teachers, rules of the road ; 7 rules about the avocations of a brahmana, avoca- tions for him in distress, what articles a brahmana could not sell or deal 111 ; 8 the forty sarnskaras and the eight spiritual qualities ( such as daya, forbearance &c.); 9 the observances for प sndtaka and householder ; ro the peculiar duties of the four castes, the responsi- bilities of the king, taxation, sources of ownership, treasure-trove, suardianship of minor’s wealth ; 11 Rajadharma, the qualitics of the king’s purohita; 12 punishments for libel, abuse, assault, hurt, adultery and rape, theft in the case of the several varnas and_ rules about money-lending and usury and adverse possession, special privileges of brilmanas as to punishments; payment of debts, deposits ; 13 rules about witnesses, falsehoods when excusable ; 14 rules of impurity on birth and death; 15 Sriddha of five kinds, persons not fit to be invited at Sriddha; 16 Upakarma, period of Vedic study in the ycar, holidays and occasions for them; 17 rules about food allowed and forbidden to Brahmanas and other castes ; 18 the dutics of women, yoga and its conditions, discussion about the son born of wiyoga ; 19 the causes and occasions of prayascitta, five things that remove sin (Japa, tapas, homa, fasting, gifts ), purifi- catory Vedic prayers, holy food for one who practises japa, various kinds of tapas and gifts, appropriate times and places for japa &c ; 20 abandgning a sinner who does not undergo prayascitta and the way of doing it; 21 sinners of various grades, mahapatakas, upapatakas 5. The Dharmasiitra of Gautama ` 15 &c.; 22 prayaseittas for various sins such as rabmahatya, adultery, killing a Ksatriya, Vaisya, Sidra, cow and other animals &c.; 23 prayascitta for drinking wine, and nasty things, for incest and un- natural offences, and for several transgressions by brahmacarin ; 24 secret prayascittas for mahapitakas and upapatakas ; 26 the penances called Krcechra and Atikrcchra; 27 the penance called Candra- yana; 28 partition, stridhana, reunion, twelve kinds of sons, inheritance. The Gautama-dharmastitra is written entirely in prose and it contains no verses either quoted or composed by the author him- self, as is the case with the other dharmasutras. Here and there occur sutras that look like portions of Anustubh verses e.g. 23. 27%. The language of Gautama agrees far more closely with the standard set up by Panini than the dharmasntras of Baudhayana and Apas- tamba. It is not very easy to account for this difference. It 1s obvious that commentators and generations of students that were brought up in the tradition of the Panincan grammar tampered with the text and improved it in accordance with their notions of correct Sanskrit. But why this process should not have been carried out to the same extent in the case of Apastamba it is difficult to say. A conjecture may be hazarded that the Ap. Dh. S. being a well-knit component of the Ap. Kalpa and being studied as such was. less liable to being tampered with than the Gautama Dh. 9.3 which probably did not in its origin belong to any particular kalpa. The same commentator, LJaradatta, explained both Gautama and Apastamba. Llaradatta, who as will be seen later on, was a great grammarian, shows in several places that the current reading was ungrammiatical from the Paninean stand-point and that he preferred readings that were in consonance with Panini’s rules*?, There are still a few un-Paninean words, ८, g. in 1. 14 (‘dvavirhsateh’ for dvavith- sat’ )and 9. 52 (kularhkula ). ‘The Tantravartika ( p. 99 ) appears भण यय = धि 7 वि ~ ~~~ ~~ Ts mee ~ ~ ee —_— =-= ~" ~~~ —_ Ol आ।क्रोशानृतह्िसिास् Rt परमं तपः । 62 ९.8.०० aj, घ, सू. 16. 2 ( ऋग्यजषं च समशब्दो यावत्‌ ) ४० 8४58 ‹ sea युग ITI । अचतुरेत्यादिन। निपातः । पश्वधन्तप।टस्तु (ie ऋम्यजुषां ) नास्मम्यं रचिते; Ma, ध. सू. 28 ( प्रतिषिद्धवाद्ृमनसापिच्रि ) hesays TEATS पाठोस्मभ्यं न रोचते। अचतुरोति समासान्त बिधिपरसङ्गात्‌ । › 16 - History of Dharmasastra to discuss the various readings in Gautama (I. 45%). A few पाऽ quoted from Gautama in the Mitiksara (€. 2. the stitra ‘utpatyaiva arthsvamitvam labhantc), the Smrticandrika (dvyathgam va purvajah syat ) and other works are not found in the extant text. This fact along with the fact of an interpolation of one chapter makes it clear that the present text of Gautama is of somewhat doubtful authority. The literature known to the Gautama-dharmasttra was extensive. Besides the Vedic sarhhitas and Brahmanas it mentions the following works ; Upanisads (19. 13), the Vedangas (8.5 and 11. 19 ), Itihisa (8. 6), Purana (8.6 and 11. 9), Upaveda (11. 9) dharmsistra (11. 19). That he borrows a chapter from the Sama- vidhana-brahmana has been mentioned above. He borrows the first six sutras of the 25th chapter from the Taittiriya Aranyaka (11.18). The Sramanaka (in Gautama II]. 26) is, according to Haradatta, the Vaikhanasa-Sastra (either composed by Vikhanas or treating of the duties of hermits). Gautama refers to Anviksikt (XL. 3) The only teacher of dharma he quotes by name in Manu (in 21.7 ) who is cited for the proposition that there is no expiation for the three sins of brabmahatyd, drinking wine and violation of the bed of the gurn. Haradatta says that in the extant Manusmrti the same propositions are laid down about brabmahatya and surapana (in Manu 11. 89 and 146 respectively ), but that as to violation of guru- 14100 a passage from the Manusmriti has to be searched out (१.९. such a passage is not found there). From this Bthler drew the conclusion that Gautama refers to the dharmasutra attributed to Manu (and not to any versified Manu-smrti). But Bithler is not right in drawing this inference. In the first place in spite of what Haradatta says there are verses in the extant Manusmriti (XI.104-105) which say that death is the expiation for violation of the guru’s bed. In the second place there is nothing to show, even if Haradatta «were correct, that Gautama refers only to a dharmasutra of Manu and not to a versificd work. Besides Manu, Gautama frequently quotes certain views ascribed to the ‘ Acaryas’ ( €. g. Ill. 35, IV. 18). Wha teachers are meant by the word ‘ Acaryah’ (which occurs in the Nirukta, in Kautilya and various other works), it is difficult to say — - —— ~~~ —— = ~ ~+ ere ~ ~~ =, [मी mee = = => = 63 It follows from the discussion in the तन्बवार्तिक that the ancient pathu in its day was ‹ केपगन्धापकषणं शीचममेध्यालिपस्य > while the present text has ‹ ०शोचममेध्यस्य१, Vide TST EA IIT. 48 which reads ‘ ogqu शोचममेध्यालि- पस्य ज oto. 6. The Dharmastira of Gautama 17 Probably the word means ‘the general traditional view of most writers in that particular sastra on a particular point.’ In numerous places Gautama refers to the views of his predecessors in the words ‘ eke’ (2. 15, 4oand 56, 3. 1, 4. 17; 7. 23 &c. ) and ‘ekesim’ ( 28. 17 and 38). This proves that Gautama was preceded by great literary activity in the sphere of dharmasastra. Gautama 11. 28 seems to be a reminiscence of the Nirukta CII. 3 )¢. The earliest reference to Gautama as an author on dharma occurs in the Baudhayanadharmasttra. Baudhayana discusses the au- thoritativeness of usages peculiar to the north or the south and quotes Gautama as saying that it is wrong to bold that certain customs must be held authoritative in certain countries ( even though opposed to Vedic tradition and smrti). This refers to ©. Dh. S. 11. 20. In another place Baudhayana gives it as his view that a Brahmana, if he cannot make a living by teaching, officiating as a priest or by gifts, should earn his livelihood as a Ksatriya and quotes the views of Gautama as opposed to 10156. The extant Gautama on the other hand teaches the same view as that of Baudhayana®*. Buhler made the plausible suggestion that the प्य्‌ in the extant Gautama is an interpolation. Govindasvami, the commentator of Baudhayana, suggests that anothcr Gautama is referred to by Baudhayana. [1 is possible to suggest that in the Ms. of Gautama used by Baudhayana the ऽप्य about living as a Asatriya did not occur and the next stitra about living asa Vaisya alone occurred. Chapter 19 of the Gautama- dharmasttra which forms an introduction to prayascillas in Gautama seems to have been borrowed wholesale by Baudhayana CII. 10) with slight changes. That Baudhayana borrows follows from the fact that the chapter in Baudhayana occurs in the middle of the discussion about prayascittas and not as an introduction, which is the case in Gautama. Baudhayana treats of penances in several places CII. 1, Il. $. roand IV. 1.4). There are besides many stitras in both Gautama and Baudhayana that exhibit a close correspondence, e. g. 6५ ‘augl द्म नादित्याहुस्तेनादान्तान्दमयेत्‌+ The निरुक्त has दण्डा aaa... gaTigeaI- मन्यवः », 6 अभ्यापनयाजनपतिगमरैरशक्तः HAMA जीवेस्मरत्यनन्तरत्वात्‌ | नेति गोतमोत्युम्रो हि श्च- अधर्मो बाह्मणस्य । बो. ध. सू. 71. 2. 69-70 6 यत्जन,ध्य।पनप्रतिमरदमः सर्वेषाम्‌ । Tas पूरवो गुरुः । तद्‌लामे AAA । तदुलामे वंश्य- वृत्तिः । ग।. ध. सू. 7" ५7 ४, ०, ३. 18 History of Dharmagastra Gautama III. 25-34 and Baudhayana Il. 6.17 about Vaikhanasa, Gaut. 3. 3 and 35 and Baud. I. 6. 29, Gaut. 15. 29 and Baud. II. 8. 2, Gaut. 23. 8-ro and Baud. II. 1. 12-14, Gaut. 24. 2 and Baud. 11. 3. 8. The Ap. Dh. ऽ. II. 6.15. 2 speaks of Smrti as laying down Ahatup to upenavana there is no adhikara for homa. This pro- bably refers to Gautama [. 1-3. The Vasisthadharmasttra also guotes the views of Gautania in two places ( 4. 34 and 36, impurity on death). “Vhe first refers to Gautama 4. .41 but the second cannot be traced in the extant Gautama. Chapter 22 of Vasistha 15 bor- rowed from the Gautaniadharmasutra, chapter 19. There are besides many sutras that are the sanie or almost the same in Gautama and Vasistha, ८. oe. Gautama 3. 31-33 and Vas. 9. 1-3, Gaut. 3. 26 and Vas. 9. 10, Gaut. 1. {| and Vas. 3. 37, Gaut. 1. 4o and Vas. 3. 38, Gaut. 1. .45-6 and Vas. 3. 48, (वपा, 1. 28 and Vas. 3. 49, Gaut. ty. 9-7 and Vas. |. 24-26. Gautama is referred to in the Manu- spirit (UL. 10) as the son of Gtathya. Gautama is one of the authors of dharinasastras cvumerated in Yajnhavalkya (Ll. 5). Apararka quotes a verse trom the Bhavisvapurana which speaks of Gautama’s pro- hibition about drinking™. Similarly Kullaka (on Manu XI. 146) quotes a verse from the same Purana which refers to Gautama 23.2. Kumarila ino his ‘Fantravartika quotes over a dozen sutras from Gautama which present the same text as we have’*. Gautama ry. 29 and 12. pare quoted by Suikara in bis bhasva on Vedantasitra 11]. 1. Sand [. 3. 38 respectively. Visvarupa in his commentary on Yajnavalkya quotes numerous sttras from Gautama. In Medha- 1111115 Ahdyva on Manu the writer more frequently quoted than any other is Gautama Ce. g. on Manu I. 6, भा. 125 &e.) The foregoing discussion about the literature known to the Gautama Dh. S. and the authors and works that mention Gautama or quote the dharmasutra helps us in arriving at the approximate age of the dharmasutra. [le is separated by a long interval from the Samavidhana Brethmana. Tle is later than Yaska and wrote at a time when Panini’s system was either not in existence or had not attained a pre-eminent positon, “The extant text was known to Baudhayana and Vasistha and was in the same state long before 700 A. D. The sutra betrays no knowledge of the onslaught delivered on Brahma- 67 प्रतिषधः सुरापाने मयस्य च नराधिपं । RAAT: सततं गातमादिभिः ॥ भविष्व्ुराण quoted by अपराकं 7. 1076. 68 Vide JBBRAS vol. 1 ( new series } for 1925, pp. 66-67, 6. The Dharmasitra of Gautama 19 nism by Buddha and his followers. He uses the term Bhiksu ( ३. 10) instead of the term parivrajaka that occurs in Baudha- yana, Apastamba and other siitra works and lays down that a bhiksn is to stay in one place in the rains, which reminds one of the Bud- dhist ^ bhikkhu’ and ( Vasso’”. Gautama cites the opinion of some that Yavana is the offspring of a Ksatriva male and a Stidra female (4.17). It is supposed by many scholars that the Yavanas became known to the Indians only at the time of Alexander’s invasion and hence every work in which the word yavama occurs must 16 hares than 320 B.C. Buhler (9. B. 1. vol. [. Intro. ivi.) seems to suggest that the stitra where the word Yavana occurs 1 Gautatua may be an interpolation. This is not a satisfactory explanation, One may ask, if Buhler belicves that the Indians borrowed their alphabet centuries before Alexander from the . neighbours of the Greeks, why it is improbable that the Indians may not have heard of the word Yavana centuries before Alexander and why Yavanas may not have resided in India long before that date. ‘Yaking all these things into consideration the Gautama-dharmasttra cannot be placed later than the period between 600-400 B. ^. Haradatta wrote a learned commentary on the Gautama-dharma- satra called Mitaksara. For an account vide sec.87 below. In numicr- ous places he quotes the explanations of other commentators of Gautama (€. 8. 9. §23 10. 12, 56, 66; 11. 173 12. 32; 21. ५९५. ). The bbasya of Maskari, son of Vamana, is also a learned one, but may probably be later than Haradatta, since the interpretations which he quotes as given by others are found to be those of Haradatta ( vide on Gaut. 12. 30, 13. 20-22 ) Asahaya seems to have written a bhasya on Gautama; aide sec. 59 below. The Mitaksara, the Snirticandrika, Hemadri, Madhava, and other writers quote a sloka-Gautama. Vide Parasara-~-Madhaviya, vol. I, part I, p. 7. Aparirka, Hemadri and Madhava quote Vrddha- Gautama, while the Dattakamimarhisa ( p. 72 ) quotes Vrddha-Caut. and Brhad-Gaut. side by side on the same point. ‘Uhese are later works, Jivananda publishes a smrti of Vrddha-Gautama 1) 22 chapters and about 1700 verses ( part II, pp. 497-636 ), where it 15 said that Yudhisthira asked Krsna about the dhurines of the four castes. Thissmrti seems to have been originally taken from the Asvarnedhikaparva of the Mahabharata, as Madhava and others cite 20 History of Dharmaégastra verses occurring in it as from that parva ( vide Paragaramadhaviya vol, I, part I, pp. 108-110). 6. The Baudhayana Dharmasutra. ^“ This has been editcd several times (text by Dr. Hultzsch at Leipzig in 1884, text in the Anandasrama collection of smrtis and in the Mysore Government Oriental Series in 1907 with the commentary of Govindasvamin ; translated in S. B. E., Vol. 14, with an Introduction ). The Mysore edition has been’ used in this work. Baudhayana is a teacher of the Krsnayajurveda. A complete set of the Baudhayanasttras has not yet been recovered and has not been as carefully preserved as the stitras of Apastamba and Hiranyakesin. Dr. Burnell arranges Baudhayana’s sutras into six sutras, the Srautasiitra in 19 prasnas ( probably ) ; Karmantasitra in 20 adhyayas; Dvaidhasutrain four prasnas; Grhyastitra in four prasnas ; Dharmastitra in four prasnas ; Sulvastitra in three adhyayas. The commentators offer no indication as to the place originally assign- ed to the grbya, dharma and sulva_satras in the whole collection. Dr. Caland in his monograph (A.D. 1903) ‘Uber das Rituelle sttra des Baudhayana’ gives on p. r2the contents of the Baudhayanasttra as follows: Prasnas I-XXI Srauta, XXTI-XXV Dvaidha, XXVI-XXVIII Karmanta ; XXIX-XXXI Prayaseitta, XACXIT Sulvasatra, XXXII- XXXV Grhvasiitra, XXXVI Grhyaprayascitta; XXXVIL Grhya- paribhasa, AXNVIT-XLI Crhyaparisista; XLU-XLTV Pitrmedha, XLV Pravara, XLVI-XLIX Dharma. Dr. Caland edited nine prasnas of the Srautastitra for the B. 1. Series (A.D. t904). Dr. रि. Sham- sastri published for the Mysore University (in 1920 ) the Baudhaya- nagrhyasatra with parthhasa, grhyasesa, Pitrmedhasttra. The Grhyastitra cites the view of Baudhayana himself (1.7). The Baudhayana-dharma refers to the Grhya and presupposes it in several piaces ( vide note 54 ). In the Baudhayanagrhya ( III. 9. 6 ) we have a reference to fudaxara Atreya, Vrttikara Kaundinya, pravacanakara Kanva Bodhayana, and Sitrakara Apastamba.6* A similar passage 68a अथ दृक्षिणतः प्राचीनावीतिनो वेशम्पायनाय फलिङ्गव तित्तिरये उसरायोख्यायात्रये AT याय पदकाराय कण्डिन्याय वृत्तिकाराय कण्वाय बोधायनाय प्रवचनकारायापस्तम्बाय सृजकाराय TANS दरण्यकेशाय वाजसनेयाय याज्ञवल्क्याय भद्राजायाभिवेश्याया- चार्येभ्य ऊभ्वरतोभ्यो वानम्रह्थेभ्यो DEPT एकपत्नीभ्यः कल्पयामीति, The epithets must be understood as arranged above, since elsewhere the epithet सञज्जकः।र्‌ is specially appropriated to anq¢gqrq, The दिरण्यकेशिगृद्य (II. 20. 1, vy 6. The Baudhiyana Dharmasitra 21 occurs in the Bharadvaja Grhyasaitra. In the Baudhayana-dharma- 5८५ (II. 5.27 Rsitarpana ) we have Kanva Bodhayana, Apas- tamba sutrakara and Satyasidha Hiranyakesin one after another. These references show that Kanva Bodhiyana was an ancient sage when the Baudhayana-dharmastitra was written and that he could not have been the author of the grhya or the dharma आप of Baudhiyana. Baudhayana may have been a descendant of this Kanva Bodhayana. ‘his surmisc is supported by Govindasvamin who explains Baudhayana occurring in Baudhayanadharmasitra [. 3. 13, as Kanvayana. 1) the dharmasitra Baudhayana is himself cited as an authority several times (e.g. 1. 4.15 and 24, TI. 5. 8, III. 6. 20). In all these places the Mysore edition reads Bodhayana, while the Anandagrama reads Baudhayana. In one or two places he isstyled ‘ bhagavan’ (III. 6. 20). Several explanations are offered by the commentator Govindasvamin (on I. 3. 132). He says that it isthe practice of the Acaryas to refer to themselves in the third person Cas Medhatithi says on Manu %) or that the author of the dharmasttra is a pupil of Baudhayana as the Manusmrti is promul- gated by Bhrgu, the pupil of Manu, or there was some other Baudha- yana whose works have not come down to us. The following are the contents of the Baudhayana-dharmasttra:— Prasna t:~-Sources of dharma, who are sistas, parisad, different practices of northern and southern India, countries where Sistas reside and where mixed castes reside, priyascitta for visiting countries of the latter type ; 2. Studenthood for 48, 2.4 or 12 vears, time of upanayane and the girdle, skin, staff appropriate to each caste, duties of brabmacdrin, eulogy of brabmacarya ; 3. The duties of the snataka who has completed bis studies and observances but has not yet married; 4. directions about carrying the earthen jar Cin the case of the sndtaka ); 5. bodily and mental sauca, purification of various substances, impurity on birth and death, meaning of sapinda and sakulya, rules of inheritance, purification on touching a corpse 07 a woman in her menses or on dog-bite, what flesh and food was — geet को 99 म eee ~ कः ed. by Kirste in 1889) makes this clear. It reads ‘ आचयाय पदकाराय कोण्डिन्याय वृत्तिकाराय सूत्रकारेभ्यः Bay प्रवचनकत्रभ्य आचार्येभ्यः &०. ARIST (quoted by Dr. Caland in ‘ Uber das Rituelle &c. p.3.n.2) reads ^ बोधायनाय भरद्वाजाय शूजकारायपस्तम्बाय स्वेभ्यः सुत्रकरेभ्यः Ke. | 69 ' प्रायेण eerie स्वमतं परापदेशेन AAA.” 22 History of Dharmaéastra allowed and forbidden ; 6. Purification from the point of view of sacrifice, purification of clothes, ground, grass, fuel, vessels, and articles used in sacrifice ; 7. Rules about the importance from the sacrificial point of view of sacrifice, of the sacrificial utensils, priests, the sacri- ficer and his wife, ghee, cooked offerings, the victim, soma and fires; 8. The four waryas and the sub-castes; 9. Mixed castes; 10. the duties of kings, the five greatsinsand punishments for them, punish- ments for killing birds, witnesses ; rr. The eight forms of marriage, holidays ; Prasua [[. 1. Prayascittas for brabmahatya and other great sins, prayascittas for a brabmacharin violating his vow of celibacy, for marrying a sagotra girl, for marrying before elder brother, sins lesser than the ereat ones, description of such penances as Paraka, Kre- chra, Atikrechra; 2. Partition of heritage, larger share for the eldest, the several substitutes for an aurasa son, exclusion from inheri- tance, dependence of women, pravaéscitta for adultery by men and women, rules about w/vega, means of subsistence in distress, con- tinuous duties of the house-holder such as Agnihotra &८.; 3. The daily duties of the houscholder such as bathing, acamana, Vaisva- deva, giving food; 4. Sandhya; 5. Rules about the manner of bathing, of Acamana, worship of the sun, and about the method of propitiating ( "(41/१५ ` ) gods, sages and pitris; 6. The five great daily vajias; the four castes and their duties; 7. regulations about dinner; 8. Sraddha; 9. culogy of sons and spiritual benefit: from sons; 10. rules about ऊत; Prasna UL. 1 modes of subsistence for the two kinds of houscholders, Salina and Yavavara; 2 the means of subsistence called ‘ Sannivartani’; 3. the duties of the forest her- mitand his means of livelihood; |. pravascitta for not observing the vows of brabmacarin or householder; 5. method of reciting Aghamarsaua, the holiest of texts; 6. the ritual of prasrtayavaka ; 7 the purificatory doma called Kigmanda; 9. the penance called candrayaua; ५ the recital of the Vedas without taking food; ro. theories about purifications for sin, purifying things; Pragna 1४. 1, prayascittas of various kinds viz. for cating forbidden food or drink &५.; 2. pranavamas and Aghamarsaua as purifiers in case of several SINS; 3. secret prayascittas; 4. Various Vedic texts as prayascittas; ३. Means of securing siddhi by means of japa, homa, ist? and yantra: the penances called Krechra, Ati-Krechra, Santapana, Paraka, Candravana; 6 the muttering (japa) of holy texts, the istis; 7 praise of Yantras, various Vedic texts used in home; 8 censure of those who enter on the means of siddhi out of great greed, permis- 6. The Baudhayana Dharmasiitra 28 sion to get these things done through another in certain circum- stances. The extant Dharmasutra does not appear to have come down in- tact. The fourth prasia is most probably an interpolation. Most of the eight chapters of that prasna are full of verses, the portion in prose being very small. The last three chapters (6-8) are entirely in verse. The style is quite different from that of the first two prasnas, ‘The first five chapters of the fourth prasna dealing with prayascittas are more or less superfluous, the same subject having been dealt with in [|. 1 and HI. y-1ro. Some of the stitras 1 the earlier prasnas are repeated verbatin 11 the fourth, ८. 2.1. 1. 33-34 and IV. 2. 101 Cavakirni-prayaseitta ). The पारात्‌ prasua also is not free from doubt. The tenth chapter of the third prasia is as said above taken from Gautama. ‘The sixth chapter of the third prasna agrees very closely 11) phraseology with the 4~8th chapter of the Visnudharmasttra. But itis rather difheult to say which is the borrower. Dr. Jolly (S.B. i. Vol. VIL. p. >>) is inelined to think that both borrowed from a common souree. It seems more probable that Visnu borrows from Baudhavana, as the Visnudharmastitra uses the form ^ punita’ in place of ^ punatha’ Cin Baud. ) and as the Visnu-Dharmasutra omits all reference to Rudra (Baud. 111. 6. 12.) and omits the words ^" तोता) pasvati, ganadhipatim = pasyati... bhagavan Bodhayanah ” (Baud 111.6. 20. ). 1४1 the Mysore edition all the four prasvas of the Daarmasutra ave divided into adhyavas, but the Mss used by Bihler appear to have divided the first: two prasnas into kandikas and the Jast wo into adhyvavas. “There are many repetitions even in the first two prasnas, which therefore make one rather doubtful about the authenticity of the first two prasnas also in their entirety. For example JT. 6. 11 and 31 are indentical ; In TI, 7, 22 and IT. 10. 53 the same verse ( “astau erasa’”” &e. ) is quoted. Such repetitions are frequent in the two last prasnas ९. $. {11.2.16 and Tis.3.23 5 TIL.4.5 and 1.7.12. Some of the quotations ascribed to Baudhavana in the Mitaksara and other works are not taken from the कावा, but from the Grhyastitra or its supple: ments Ce. g. the words ‘ ckarh sakham-adhite Srotrivah ” quoted in the Mit. on Yaj. HE. 24, which are cited by Hultzsch (on p. 125) are taken from the Grhya (vide note 78 below ) The Dharmasttra of Baudhayana is somewhat loose in structure and is notconcise. Govindasvamin remarks (on |. 2. 19. ) that $4 History of Dharmatistra Baudhayana does not aim at brevity.7° Several subjects are treated of in two places and often without any logical connection with what precedes or follows. Rules of inheritance ( daya-bhaga ) occur in the midst of rules about prayascitta ( in [[. 2. ) ; rules about holidays Canadhyaya ) occur immediately after the cight forms of marriage and the condemnation of the sale of a daughter (I. 11). Rules about saalaka occur in two places ( 1. 3 and [[. 3. 10 ff. ). Baudha- yana quotes at least 90 verses introduced by the words “ athapyuda- haranti,” more than 80 being from the first two prasnas alone. There are over two hundred other verses, about 80 of which occur in the first two prasnas and about ten are Vedic. Some of the verses even in the first two prasnas do not appear to be quotations e. g. I. 1. 16 II. 2. 1, IL. 3. 50, Il. 3. 52-5.4. and 56. A verse quoted is in the VathSastha metre CIV. 3. 14); there are two verses in the Upajati metre taken as a quotation (If. 3.78 ). Phere are some prose quota- tions introduced with the words ‘athapyudaharanti” (९, g. 11. 4. $ and [1]. 6. 30 which refers to the asare Kapila, son of Prahlada). The language of the Baud. Dh. 9. is archate and often departs from the Paninean standard. Baudhayana employs such un-Paninean forms as “erhya” (for grhitva in IL 5.1), pajya CIL 9. 5.), “ adhigacchanah ” ( 11 11. 9. 9. ),. anayitva (1. 3. 6), ^^ punatha” Cin 11. 6. 5; probably a quotation ), “tebhih” Cfor tath in TID. 2. 16, 3a quotation ). In several places Baudhiayana states opposite views and then gives his own opinion on the point, ८. g. Baud. 7, $ 105-109 (about impurity on bith ); UH. 1. 49-51. As regards the literature known to Baudhayana the following points may be neted. All the four Vedas are mentioned by name in [[. 5.27 Clarpaua ). We quotes very frequently the Taittiriya Samhita, Tai. Brahmana and the ‘Tai. Aranyaka (inthe Andhra recen- 57011 ). Well-known hymns of the Reveda such as the Aghamar- sana, the Purusasukta ane also simple ‘rks’ are frequently referred to. In HP. ro (which is almost the same as Gautama rg ) there ts a sutra enumerating the Upanisads, the Samhhitas of all the Vedas and several samans प", purificatory texts. There are long quotations taken from the Satapatha-brahmana ( XT. 3. 3. 1 ff and XI. 5. 6. 3 ) in Baud. (1 about brahmacart and [[.6. 7-9 about brabmayajiia ) It is noteworthy that in the farpaya there is an invocation of the ere ग 18 7 त 1 त म 9 1 ~+ = ~~~ ~ 10 नन्‌ द्विजातंष स्वक मस्थप इ।त AHA FIAT TAZA | सत्य, अव ह्याचार्यो नातीव प्रन्थलाघवामिप्रायो मवान्‌ । 6. The Baudhtyana Dharmasiitra 25 Atharvaveda and immediately afterwards of the Atharvangirasah. The same is found in the Baudhayanagrhya also (III. 2. 9 and 22). In the Upanisads (Brhadaranyaka [1.1.103 1V. 1.2) it is the word Atharvangi- rasah that stands for the Atharvaveda. Baudhayana quotes a gathi of the Bhallavins (I. 1. 29 ) about the geographical limits of Aryavarta. Vasistha adduces the same verse (I. 15) and says that it is taken from the Nidana work of the Bhallavins. The Nirukta also mentions a school of Vedic interpretation called Naidanah. It is difficult to say what Nidana works comained. [f/bdsa and Purana occur in the tarpaua (IL. 5.27). The (ष्का of the Vedas oecur in [1.8 and the six amgasin [. 8.2. 0 Whether the word “ rahasya” in 7. 8. 3 means the Aranyakas Cas Govindasvamin explains ) 1s doubtful. Baudhayana mentions a Vaikhdnasa-sistra in IL 6. 16, which appears to refer to the work of Vikhanas on hermits and speaks of Sramanaka ( the rites prescribed by Vikhanas for initiation as hermit ), just as Gautama docs. Among the auchors on dharma mentioned by name are : Aupajanghani ( 1. 2. 33 for the view that only aurasa son was to be recognised and not the other kinds of sons? ), Katya (J. 2. 47), Kasyapa ( or Kasyapa in other editions, J. rr. 20 on the point that a woman bought cannot be a patui ), Gautama (1. 1. 23 and II. 2. 70 ), Prajapau (1. 4. 15 about failure in Sandhyopasana, and IL. 10. 71 about saunydsa), Manu CIV. 1. 14 and 1V. 2.16), Maudgalya (Il. 2.61, about observances of a widow being restricted only to six months after her husband’s death), Harita (Il. 1. 50). Baud. I. 2. 7 quotes a verse, which Vasistha ascribes to Harita (Vas. 11. 6). As to Gautama, vide p. 17 above. Manu is only mentioned in the fourth pragna, the authenticity of which, as said above, is very doubtful. Baudhayana II. 2.16 (about the efficacy of Aghamarsaua ) closely agrees with Manu XI. 260. The first reference to Manu’s teaching cannot be traced in the Manusmrti. Prajapati (in IIT. 9. 21) seemts to stand for god Brahma and not for any real or mythical writer on dharma. One remarkable piece of information contained in Baudhayana (II. 6. 30 ) is that he quotes from a work ( of the Brahmana class in language ) a prose passage wherein the division into four 4sramas is ascribed to an asura Kapila, ‘son of Pralhada. In II. 2. 79 Baudhayana quotes a galha from the ee RE EE ney (गोरर 71 One of the verses ( अभमत्ता रक्षत तन्तमेनं ) 18 referred to by शयरस्वामीं ०४ पू. मी. सू, 1. 2.13 ( अपराधात्‌ कर्तुश्च TIANA ). H. D. 4. 26 History of Dharmatistra dialogue between the daughter of Usanas and the king Vrsaparvan’’, which is nearly the same as MahabharataI. 78. 10 and 34. Baud. quotes the view of Acdryas (II. 6. 29 ) as Gautama does. In several places he refers to the views of his predecessors on dharma as ^ others ” (eke, apare) ९. g. I. 4. 23, I. 5. 16, I. 6. 105-106, II. 5. 2. In II. 3. 18 two verses in the Upajati metre are quoted as sung by “anna” (food ). From the numerous quotations in verse cited by Baudhiyana on topics of dharma, it follows that the Dharmasttra was preceded by a considerable number of works on dharma in verse. Buhler (SBE vol. XIV, p. XLIID) says that Vijnanesvara was the first writer who quoted the Baud. 0. 9. But there are writers who flourished centuries before Vijnanesvara that regarded Baudhayana as a writer on dharma and either quoted his words or pointedly referred to them. Sabara in his bhasya on Jaimini, I. 3. 3 says that the rule in the Smrtis about the period of Vedic study being 48 years is opposed to the Vedic injunction “fone who has begot sons and whose hair are dark should consecrate the sacrificial fires7}.” This must be regarded as referring to the words of Baudhayana (I. 2. 1 ) Sabara uses the same word ‘‘Vedabrahmacarya” that Baud. employs. {ए is true that Gautama and Apastamba both refer to the rule about 48 years, but they do not employ the word ^" veda-brahmacarya. ” The Tantravartike of Kumarila says that the words of Apastamba (II. 6. 15. 7 ) which seem to accept the validity of local and family usages (even though opposed to Smrti tradition) stand refuted by the words of Baudhayana (I. 1. 19-24) who cites only such censured usages as are opposed to Smrti. Kumarila appears to think that Baudhayana attacks the extant work of Apastamba, 1. ९. the present Baud. is Jater than the present Apastamba. It is not necessary to follow 78 स्तुवतो दुहिता लं वे याचतः sire । अथाह स्तूयमानस्य ददतोभतिगह्णतः ॥ 13 शबर" words are “ अष्टाचत्वारिंशदरवर्षणि वेदुब्ह्मचयंचरणे Tags: रुष्णकेशं प्रीना- द्धीत-इत्यनेन विरुद ग * ००1. 8. 8 and again on I. 3. 4 ८ AIRF प्रच्छादयन्तश्चा- CATA TTT alate’, बोधायन words are अष्टाचत्वारिशद्रषाणे पारार्णं वेदब्रह्मचर्यम्‌. Compare गृ, घ, सु. 2.52 and अ, ध, सू I. 1. 2. 12. 7 तन्त्रवार्तिक 2. 139 “आपस्मम्बवचनं तु बोधायनेन स्मरति विरुदवदुश्टाचारोद्‌ाहृरणान्येव प्रय- च्छता निरारूतम्‌ १, The words in the a, ध, स, (7. 1. 22} tay ay देश- wn MARTA Eqiq’ A¥e opposed to the words of आपस्तम्ब ‘way देशकलधमी SOTA,” | न ¢. The Baudhayana Dharmasiltra 27 Kumiarila implicitly as regards chronological details, where he is speaking of writers that flourished over a thousand years before him. But his opinion deserves weight. The Tantravartika quotes a Smrti passage which bears a close resemblance to Baudhayana (II. 3. 28)"5. In the commentary of Visvaripa ( who as we shall see below flourished about 800 A. D. ) on Yajnavalkya, Baudhayana is quoted at least nine times in the chapter on dedra alone. Vide Visvarapa on Yaj. I. 21, 26, 29, 53, 64, 69, 72, 79, 195 ( Trivandrum edition ), where Baud. I. 5. 14, I. 2. 30, I. 5. $; I. 1.17, IV. 1.15, IV. 1. 18, IV. 1. 22, [V. 1. 20 and [. 5. 47 are respectively quoted. There are very few variations from the present text and the only serious variation is as regards the last (I. 5. 47 ) which is in prose ( while Visvaripa quotes a verse ). It is remarkable that Visvaraipa quotes several verses from the fourth prasna, which shows that even if the fourth prasna be an interpolation, it is comparatively an ancient one. The Mit. also (on Yaj. IIT. 306 ) quotes a long passage from the fourth prasna (IV. 1. 5-11). The words of the Sakuntala’® that the first precept is that a girl is to be given away to a meritorious person are probably a reminiscence of Baud. IV. 1.12. Medhatithi on Manu. ४, 117 quotes Baudhayana J. 5. 47 and on IV. 36 quotes Baud. I. 4. 2 ( which is mutilated as printed). On Manu. V. r1q he says that all the rules about purification of substances are con- tained in Baudhayana-smyti. On Manu. V, 118, he quotes Baud. I. 5. 50. About the home of Baudhayana it is dithcult to advance any posi- tive conclusion. In modern times Baudhayaniyas are mostly confined to the south. We know that Sayana, the great commentator of the Vedas, was a Baudhayaniya. ----~ ^~ = क ० ५ ० पानक = => ee न 7 तन्त्रवार्तिक ए. 993 ' तथा च स्मरतिः । ...धारयेद्रणवं दण्डं शभे Ta च कुण्डले-- इत्यादि सूपपत्स्यते 1’ Baud. has वेणवं दण्डं धारयेद्ुक्मकुण्डल च. Compare मनु 1४. 36. 1४ 18 probable that the तन्नवार्ति्र combines घ्या, and मनु. 10 ' गुणवते कन्यका प्रदेया इति तावलथमः कस्पः ` शकुन्नल 4४४ Act; while Baud. has ' दृद्यह्रुणवते कन्यां नभिकां बह्मचारिणे " 77 1, A. vol, 8, pp, 273-274. 28 History of Dharmafgastra belonged to the Baudhayanacarana. Buhler is probably right. In the grant most of the donccs are students of the Apastamba Sutra. First the Gotra, then the Siitra and then the name of the donee are intro- duced in the grant. Therefore as some of the donees are said to be students of “ pravacanastitra,” it follows that रन pravacana” stands for some sutra school. Jt appears that sa/ra and pravacana are two different things, whatever the latter term may mean. Baudhayana is called pravacanzkara and Apastamba is styled sitrakara. We are told by the Baudhavana-grhystitra?® that a Brihmana who studied sutra and pravacaia was styled “ bhrana. ” Bithler was inclined to hold that Baudhayana was a southern teacher for several reasons. Baudhayana mentions customs of the south and includes sea-faring as a custom peculiar to the north (I. 1. 20), while in another place he places sea-faring at the head of sins ( pataniyas ) lesser than the mortal ones (II. 1. 41). Therefore it is said that he was not a northern teacher. But as against this we have to remember that Baudhayana (I. 1. 29 ) quotes with apparent approval a verse in which the countries of Avanti ( Ujjain ), Anea, Magadha, Surastra ( Kathiawar ) and Daksinapatha are declared to be the home of mixed castes. Daksinapatha was generally supposed to be the whole peninsula south of the Narmada. Baudhayana, if he was a native of the south, would not lave speken of his ceuntry as the heme of mixed castes only, unless he put a restricted meaning on the word Daksinapatha ( which sometimes meant in later days Maharastra ) Vide J.B. 23. २. ^. 9. for 1५14 p. 620. The extant Baudhavanadharinastitra 15 certainly later than Gautama, as it mentions Gautama twice by name and as one quota- tion at least is found in the extant Gautama. Besides Baudhayana quotes by name several teachers on dharma, while Gautama quotes only one, Manu. Baudhavana is far removed from the times of the Upanisads. Baud. (TI. 7. 15) quotes a verse which is itself an adaptation of प passage from the Chandogya-upanisad He ee ~~ =o ons. ----- ~~ - ee ९.०७, Ee Oh 78 The whole passage is interesting ‘ दुपनीतमाचो व्रतानचारी वेदानां किंचिद्धीत्य बाह्मणः | एकां शखामधीत्य श्राचियः । अङ्गःध्य।य्यनूचानः । कल्प,ध्यायी ऋषिकल्पः । सूत्परवचनध्यायी भ्रूणः । चतुर्वेदाः । अत ऊर्वं देवः। ` बा. ग॒. पू. 1. 7. 28. 19 Baud. 'अथाप्युदाहरन्ति- यथ.हि तृलमेषीकमपनो प्रों wera । तदूत्सवाणि पापानि द्यन्ते द्यात्याजिनः ॥ ”; compare छन्दोग्येपनिषदू ४.24. 3. ‹ तयथेषीकातूलमण्नो रं प्रदूयेनेवं हास्य सर्वे पाप्मानः प्रदूयन्ते * &५. 6. The Baudhayana Dharmasiitra 29 quotes Harita. Jt is uncertain whether the Haritadharmastitra, a manuscript of which was discovered by the late Vaman Sastri Islam- purkar at Nasik, is the one intended. Buhler thought that the work of Baudhavana was earlier than that of Apastamba by a century ग two. His first reason was that Kanva Baudhayana receives ‘homage in the farpava before Apastamba and Hiranyakesin and that the same order is observed in the Baudhayana-grhyastitra. But this reason is far from convincing. [t may be conceded that Baudhayana was regarded as the oldest (or the most authoritative or respectable) of the three schools of the Black Yajurveda. But from this it does not at all follow that the extant dharma-sitra of the Baudhayaniyas ts carlier than that of the Apastambiyas. For aught we know the stitra com piled for the school of Baudhayana may be later than the sutra manual of the Apastambiyas. We saw above that orthodox opinion, represented by Kumiarila, regards Baudhayana’s work as later than Apastamba’s. All the three founders of the three schools are mentioned inthe Bandhayanagrhya and dharma stitra. One may equally argue with ००५ reason that both these works knew a stitra work of Apastamba and that the extant dharmasttra of Apastamba is that work. Another reason assigned for the priority of Baudhayana’s work over Apastam- ba’s is that, though both have numerous siitras that agree almost word for word, a comparison of the views of the two writers shows that Apastamba lays down stricter and) more puritanie Cand there- fore [71८1 ) views on certain points than Baudbavana. Gautama, Jandhavana and Vasistha mention several secondary sons, while Apastamba is silent about them. Gautama, Baudhayvana (IL. 2. 17, 62), Vasistha and even Visnu approve of the practice of miyoga, while Apastamba condemns it (TI. 6. 13. 1-9). Gautama and Baudhiyana (J. 171. 1) speak of cight forms of marriage, while Apastamba speaks of only six and omits Prajapatya and Paisaca (II. 5. 11. 17-20 and TJ. 5.12. 1-2). Baudhayana (TIT. 2. 4-6 ) allowed a larger share to the eldest son on a partition, while Apa- stamba condemns such प procedure CII. 6. 14. 10-14). The Baudhayana-grhyasttra (11. 4. 6 ) allows upanayana to rathbakara, while Apastamba ( grhya 4. 10. 1-4.) does not do so ( dharmasttra I. 1.1.19). These points are hardly conclusive on the question of date. From very ancient times there was great divergence of opinion among the doctors of the law on most, if not on all, of these points. here is no hard and fast rule that these doctrines were up- 30 History of Dharmatastra held by carly writers and condemned by later ones. Baudhayana himself quotes the views of an ancient writer, Aupajanghani, who con- demned all secondary sons. The verses that Baudhayana quotes on this point (IT. 2. 34-36) are quoted by Apastamba also but with- out the author’s name (Ap. IL. 6. 13. 6), there being variants only in the first verse. Nevoga was allowed by Manu (9. 56-63) and then condemned (9. 64-68) and Brhaspati refers to this attitude of Manu ( vide Kullaka on Manu 9. 68). Even so late a writer 25 Yajia- valkya ( 11. 131 ) approves of niyoga. About the rathakara being allowed to conscerate the sacred fires there is a discussion in the sutras of Jaimini (VI. 1. {4 fF). Vedic passages supported both ‘methods w/z. equal division among sons and the bestowal of a larger share on the eldest. Even Yajnavalkya CII. 118) allows a larger share to the eldest son. Theretore hardly anyone of the circumst- ances relied upon by Bithler as indicating a later age for Apastamba is conclusive or convincing. “The third ground for placing Baudha- yana before Apastaimba is that the style of the former is simpler and older as compared with the latter’s. ‘That Baudhayana is simpler than Apastamba may be admitted. But this may be due to the fact that Baudhayana has been tampered with more than Apastamba. On the other hand Apastamba contains more un-Paninean forms more uncouth constructions, more words 111 an archaic sense than is the case with Baudhavana. All that is almost certain about the age of the Baudhavana-dharmasutra ts that it is later than the work of Gautama, that its style, its doctrines and its general out-look on different sub- jects do not compel us to assign it a later date than that of the other dharmastitras. We have adduced evidence to show that long before the days of Sabara ( whose latest date cannot be later than 500 A.D.) the Baudhayana-dharmasutra was an authoritative smrti; it follows that the dharmasutra must be placed somewhere between 500-200 B.C. Numerous sutras are identical in Baudhayana and Apastamba e.g. Ap. [. 1. 2. 30 = Baud. I. 2. yo-q1, Ap. I. 2. 6. 8-9 = Baud. I. 2. 39, Ap. 7.5.15. 8 = Baud. व. 2. 31, Ap. Tort. उ. [1 and 16 = Baud. IT. 3. 39 and 32. There are several verses that occur in both e.g. Baud. II. 1. 12 = Ap. 1. 9. 27. 11, Baud. II. 2. 34-36 = Ap. IL. 6. 13. 6 ( three verses condemning secondary sons ), Baud. IT. 10. 63 = Ap.-11. 9. 21. 10, Baud. II. 7, 22--23=Ap. II. 4. 9. 13. (two verses), Baud. II. 6. 36.=Ap. 11. 9. 24. 8. Besides these there are numerous Vedic quotations that are common to both. All this, The Baudhayana Dharmastitra 31 however, does not establish anything about their relative position. The Vasistha-dharmasitra also has numerous quotations in common with Baud. Vide Vas. I. 15. = Baud. I. 1. 28, Vas. III. 5, 6, 71, 20, 56 = Baud. I. 1. 10, 12, rr, 8 and I. 5. 58 (respectively) ; Vas. 6. 20-21= Baud. II. 7. 22-23; Vas. VIII. 17 = Baud. II, 2,1; Vas. XI. 27-28 = Baud. II. 8. 21-22; Vas. XVI. 34 = Baud. I. to 35, Vas. XVII. 73 = Baud. FV. 1.17, Vas. XVII. 86 = Baud. I. 5. 102; Vas. XXII. 10 = Baud. IJ. 1. 33. It is to be noted that some of these quotations ( Baud. II. 8. 21-22, 1. 10. 35) occur in the extant Manusmrti also (JIT. 125-126 and VIII. 98 ) There are a few prose sitras in Vas. that are transformed into verse in Baud. and wire versa ८. ए. Vas. TIL 41 (prose) = Baud 1. 5. 20 (quoted asa verse ), Vas. III. 57 (quoted as a verse ) * = Baud. 1. 6. 19-20. It is not likely that one borrows from the other. ‘There are two other possible explanations, viz. that both ®Baud. and Vas. (and Manu also ) quote from or adapt a common source or that the three works have been tampered with and inter- polations introduced at every step. The latter alternative is too sweeping as the number of verses is very large and makes all the old stitras except that of Gautama valueless for all chronological pur- poses. One cannot subscribe to the view that such extensive inter- polations took place as the latter theory demands. The first alter- native appears more reasonable. What that common source was, whether it was a regular work in verse or whether there was a float- ing mass of such popular verses as शला holds, are questions that present very great difficulties. It is not casv to believe that there were hundreds of floating verses on dharma no body knew by whom composed, on which writers of the centuries preceding the Christian cra drew for supporting their opinions. That does not sound asa very likely procedure. It is more probable that such verses were contained in a work or works now lost. [4] TCR In the farpaua, Baud. (11. 5. 21 ) mentions several appellations of Ganega, viz. Vighna, Vinayaka, Sthala, Varada, Hastimukha,, Vakratunda, Ekadanta, Lambodara. But this affords no certain clue as to date. The worship of Vinayaka is found in the Manavagrhya 1150. In the tarpaya CID. 5. 23) we have the seven planets mentioned in the order of the days of the week and also Rahu and Ketu ; besides the twelve names of Visnu occur in I]. $. 24. In II. 1.44 Baud. speaks of the profession of an actor or of a teacher of dramaturgy ( Natyacarya ) as an upapataka. Several 32 History of Dharmaéastra sutras attributed to Baudhavanaon the subject of adoption in the Dattakamimainsa and other later works arc taken from the Baudhay- anagrhyasesasttra (II. 6 ), the sutras agreeing very closely with Vasistha (15. 1-9 ). According to Burnell the oldest commentator on the Baudhyana- Srauta-siitra was Bhavasvamin, whom he placed in the 8th century. The commentary of Govindasvamin on the Dharmasiitra is a learned one and is generally to the point. He appears to be a very late writer. 7. Dharmasutra of Apastamba. This has been edited several times Cave. by Bithler in the Bombay Sanskrit series with laree extracts from Haradatta’s commentary called Ujjvala and also at Kumbhakonam with the complete com- mentary of Haradatia and translated by Bithler with an introduction in 9. B. E. vol. IL). “Phe Apastambakalpastitra of the Taittiriya Sakha of the black Yajurveda is divided into 30 prasuas. According 10 Bithler, the first 2.4 prasnas contain the treatment of Srauta sacrifices; the 25th contains paribhisds, pravarakhanda, and Hautraka prayers to be recited by Hotr priests; 26th and 27th prasuas constitute the Grhyasitra, the 28th and 29th Dharmasutra and the उक्ती prasna isthe Sulvastitra. Bithler scems to ७८ slightly inaccurate here. According to Caundappa, who commented on the Apastambiva stitras in the ryth century, the Apastambiyamantrapatha forms the 25th and 26th prasnas of the Kalpastitra and the Grhyasittra forms 27th prasna.’’ The Srauta-stitra of Apastamba was edited by Dr. Garbe inthe B. [. series; the Grhya and = Mantrapatha were edited by Dr. Winternitz, “Phe Grhya with the commentary of Sudarsanarya has been edited 1 the Mysore Govt. Oriental series by Pandit Mahadeva Sastri (in 1893). [tis divided into cight paialas and 23 khandas. According to the Caranavyuha, Apastamba (or “‘bha” as written in many southern mss.) is one ofthe five subdivisions of the Khandikiva school of the Taittiriyasikha of the Black Yajur- veda. Whether the author of the Apastambiya Srauta, Grhya and Dharma sutras is the same ts difficult to determine. One satra in 80 पेचविशेय TaN गृह्यमन्त्राः मपञ्ित; । प्रश्नेथ समवि स्यद्र्यनन्धराविधिक्रमः ॥ (De. Winteruitz’s edition of Ap. Mantrapatha p. IX). The editor further states (p.[Xn.2) that Paribhds%s form part of the 24th prasna and not of the 25th, as Bubler says. 7. Dharmasiitra of Apastumba 33 the Apastambadharma (11. 2. 5.17) is the same as Ap. Srauta CI. 17. 8 and भा. 1. € ). Oldenbere CS. B. Evol. 30, [. NXXIL) does not subscribe to Bithler’s view CS. BLE. Voli, pp. XTIENTV ) that the authors of the Ap. Srauta and Dharnie were identical and gives 11 as his own view that another person oi the same schaci might have imitated the stvle of the author of the Srauta. What- ever may be said of the identity of the authorship of the Srauta and Dharma sutras, the Grhya and Dharma seem to be very closely related and both seem to be the compositions of the same author. “Phe Ap. Grhya satra, as compared with the Asvalavana-erhya or Gobhi- lagrhya, is extremely brief and leaves out many rules that are given in other Grhya works. For example, about the choice of a girl Ap. 21194 gives only a single rule Cr. 3. गणे? ). While it is the Dharmasttra that tells us that the bride must not be sagetra nor sapinda (Ap. Dh. S. II. 5. 11. 15-6). 11८ Ap. Grhya issilent about the forms of marriage, about holidays, about the dutues of brabma- carins and such other subjects which are venerally treated of in other Grhyasatras. These subjects are dealt with in the Ap. Dh. S. and there are several places where the Dharmasttra presupposes the existence of the Grhya and refers to it. Compare Ap. Dh. S 1. 1, 1. 10-11 *? with Ap. Gr. S. Til. 7 ( particularly stitras 1, 17, 23 ). Vide note 54above. Some sutras are identical in the Grhya and Dharma, ९. g. Ap. Dh. 9.1. 1. 2. 38 and Grhya lV. 11. 15-16 ( about the staff of Brahmacarin ) ; Ap. Dh. +. 1. 4.8.7 and Grhya V. 13. 19. In some cases the Grhya-satra itsell seems to refer to the teachings of the Dharmasutra, c. gy. Grhva 8. 21. 1 and Dharma 11. 7 16. 6-7, All these facts make it highly probable, if not certain, that the Grhya and Dharma stitras were composed by the same author and that the details of certain topics were purposely omitted in the = eee ~= ~ ~ ~ ~ = 8" बन्धुशीललक्षणसंपन्नामरोगामुपयच्छेत । 82 sara स्थाङीपाकः । तस्यपच।रः पवणेन व्याख्यातः | भप. ध. सू.; 'जथनामाम- येन स्थालीपाकेन याजयति । एवमत ऊध्वं दुक्षिणवजमुपोषिताभ्यां Tey कायः पार्वणेनातोन्यानि SANT ग्याख्यातान्याचरायानि TIT । आप. गृ सू. Vide also आप. ध. सू. 11. 7. 17. 6 ‹ सर्वेषु वृत्तेषु सवेतः समवदाय रोषस्य म्रासावराध्य प्राश्नी यायथोक्तम्‌ › and आप. ग. सु. 8. 21. 9 सवनः समवदायोत्तरेण यजुषा शेषस्य ग्रासावराष्यं प्राश्नीयात्‌, “उभयतः परिषेचनं चथा पुरस्तात्‌? आप. ध. 11. 2.3. and आप. 7, 1. 2. 3. ; “समावृत्ते चे... यथोपदेशं पजयेत्‌ › भाप. ध. सू. 11“ £ 5 4 refers to a7, गृ. सु. 9, 13, 2-19. He De 5e ; 34 History of Dharmesiie:ra (१1 Wee, “Pre Serr (1.4 Salis: (1041 1.4 boreal ane IP. 4 404 (1 SUTRA wets TAG - 1. ‘ he cont 13 (> te An gharmsa-sacn pif --- 1. Lite ५ (4१1६); १९.1.1५ EV TS Af पा Pipes ele `: Vi in, thr atv 1.05 of those whe ५11५५ cherraty Uae fer (लत, thor rrecedence; defi nition OC cay ada his greatness. une ur fe १८.१८८ according te the varnas and 2 ceriing to one’s पपात (4 Ho proper tio for npanavers 1५ ८ he whose foe, grandfather and psfac yrand-! can be pe ‘ = . rhav cousaagyaya pe fan J becomes palita, bet oo f १ ^: ’ . an ; r = MA ce fae [| = 1 $ 4 ” Vita SCilt: ४ ४ An toe. f १144५ .१८({/ ५६ । ५ ५,८१ 1 ५६. with teacher fg: AO: 1.9. ८ ne cae On coe 26) * a (ण 4 ५ 47 brabmaciriy, tis sta ctrdl Ai Fg 5. Gee 1 1 246. food, bringing [1 ता oferta fic `. : 11148 arc his fates, rules ६८... ५ [1.4 det नपे." hers eccordrag ve 11015, giving dalsavitotihe carne althe ond clo sunly s nues lor cuataka + rales about botidays and avedi the cw and place fo: ५८५1५ study + rules about holidays apely te ondy ef che Veda anc not 10 the use of muntras in Vedic nites , the five great caily yazitas 10 the bbulas, men, gods, pitrs, and sapes, benounag cacn of higher castes, old men, parcnts, brothers and ister ond others, method o: inquiring about oncs (८2. we. according to rashes occasions OF wearing yajnopavita पप्रा and maine of वव त cules about Sorbidden and permitted food and (हा) sche weeanon oof a vant row allowee toa Bidhmana except distress ; rules forbidding the sale or exchanve of certain thins... crave sins ( pacunwa ly such as theft. the inurde: of a 1}, 111114१1 ov पपा oa (प 1. 210, incest, drinking wine ete; काप्य्‌ si ate 11८ ० vrave, ough racy make ti perseirator impure y discssian of so. > ctaphysical questions पल; as tbe knowledge of the soul, सोषा , Uw moral faults tha. lead ५ perdition such as cine „ cvcrice, hypoctsy &c ; the virtues that lead to the vighest eo.0, + choos absence of anver oF avarice &e. trathfulvoss, teanquitiy } cosapensation tur killing a Ksatriya, Vaisya, 21 Sadra and women; [न्क tor killing z Brahmana and an Atreyi Brabmana woman, jor killing a guard or a Srotriya ; prayascitta for violatng Un bed of a gure, Cor drinking wine and for Gisit of gold , pravescittas tor kitling seveial birds, cows and bulls, and ter ebustis thase sho shoaid not be ebused, fo: sexual intercourse with a Sudra woman, for taking forbidden food Dharmasiitra of Apastamba 35 and drink &८. ; rales about Krechra tor twelve nivhis , ५५2 wonstivates eft; Soe ore, should act toward. a [बद ( patita ) guriand mother ९ variwus options about [तते चन्द dur (धप guri’s bed , vrayascitta for: hie pand who Sa. intercourse vith an- other woman and fr wife’s edulrery ; pravaseitta tor killine a ‘hyana (a Jecrned.brasinans ) ; गातात was not to wield त, पान, excepi in celt-detence ०2105 hadile injury; prayaseitua for abbr fast, praysécittas foc leer sins: various views about cata ( Vidyasnatike, Veussnateka ond Vidwawrateoagka } ; the observa- 1५65 Curdtas ) 0६ द्वाद :.5 regards garmenc, answer alls of nature, abou dalous talk, about not seeing the 1451128 Or setunge Sun, avoiding moral faults such astanger ; IL ( prasua) the honse- holder’s observances commence on marriage ( piuigrabana ) ; rules of conduct fer ~ hotschokies about taking food and fasting, about पवा intercourse 3 alls worgay attain unmeasured bliss by per: forming then Guiles ame arc ce born tiv eoudiuons appropriate (८. then actions and by swears of evi decds are re-born in evil surro- andings @ goo Beahimana who is a thicf or a murderer «cf a srabinaga tocumes ¢ Candala, a similarly guilty rajeiva becomes र 0४, che (त्त Higher castes should after bathing perferm 4४ 82 ध > . oe = a ee १ ध] . "क ^ । ~ ~ [क 8) ५.५०८.६५५. ८. , Sudras ima. cool toed tor 11.11 1९८13 of hivher castes 1.८1 he suparetste of (1 Offerings Cf diy of cooked foud ; 11.५4 Cathe Scboacl. oan shersd wcod, then curdren, old men, Sk ८१११५ Be a. 00. 1190 “spd 1. dee aeuseholder षै ‡ १ J eee ea ae ms, | 11.11. bono ar. ele oe sed शित" whet comes atthe end pat Vary ace Val १11९. , ay CCEL THY ५५ ES :1 6} ५५५ unfcarned 4 oy : 14111131), Wsatrivas, Vaisvas and Sudias; am nous:older should # ms, ¶ ५ v 1५५२१ NOL adi 11}. Ga {` 4.01 १.) fies sacred 1) प्त 11 serve that ५४८५1 OSC ध “4 jhe ५ ee ee Piya’ 1८4"... a 12141111 ॥॥ (131 (* व ५ a ' (5 et as -¶ rn ॥. ध greys arn [001 4 दध. Vaisya teacher, कषा of © marited man i A ’ १८ 4 ॥ ¶ ¶ | > द ड ५ “~ = ve t , . ~~ ॥ ८८ [ऋ | च~ #, + $ ४ -_ ८1141 1 0 oe pee Re ५ } 41४ i (. 14; {द {' ~ 1) 4 1 ‘a 2 f ~; ५ ५ ८१ J t ; 1 1 wits $ : ५ = = ‘ ४ { ¶ bs ५ १८ 1) abs ree toe col. ce Cad dese १1. 1 1; १ द्वनपणः 0 ८. ^^ Ces ae 11 Sa alias 9 # “ [ 1 १.५ ^“ # ) भेष = a ध | ५ le , ¢ ty ॥ 7 र > ९९ = * ॥ ae) ~ ~> = = १ Ps =. ० ¬+ + * छ 11८. 04111. ~ ८; ^“ 27८4 1 ॥ ॥ ^ a q ' ति ee वि prota.” “Saar a0 mew | ४, ,}६}) , ५ AA KH ०.८1 a ५ ४. ५१६६ ¢ # 14 . = । पः । , „1 a ee . ५ ~ eT ee = 9 hee of Wye Eg ८144144 44 £ 4 ; : ~ i, = \ | । = show. tod, + १ i.’ ५ ४ “a. ॥ ; e eee rau ^ १; + ५ ४, १६११ ९, 4८1 4 rr ae क = 2 eco „~ : 9६. {} ~, = ति ‘ ५१ । ¦ ^ ८५ (,7:,.- { sub, ५ rear Cig aes SG १३ i ee ne, = ~ ® r = ५ ५ yest ~ r sit > १५ . 1 १ ५ 4९.) ws ( ran | ८, न 4, a Li ५.८९ |} ) ' a } ५ भ. लनं ! ४. |, 36 History of Dharmagiastra brabmacdarin, householder, hermit & ८. ; occasions for begging are the teacher, marriave, sacrifice, maintenance of parents and avoidance of the cessation of some worthy obervance (like काव); the peculiar kKurmans of Brahmanas and the other castes; rules of war; the king to appoint a purohita skilled in’ dharma and art of govern- ment, who is to carry out punishments and penances; punishments including death sentence according to the gravity of the offences, but a Brahmana wasnot to be killed or injured or to be made slave; rule of the road;a man of the lower caste by practising his duties rises higher and higher when re-born and a man of the higher castes voes lower by 61/1:1111141 ; one should not marry another wife when the frst bas childran and is helpful in the performance of dhaninas res about marriageable girl, 1. ८, she must not be sagotra and supinda of the mother; six forms of maraiage, brahma, arsa, daiva, vandharva, dsura, raksasa, preference among the six; rules of conduct after marriaee; sons born of wives of the same caste can perform the duties appropriate to the father’s caste and inherit parent’s property; the sen of a woman who was once married or who isnot married according to presertbed forms or who is not of the same caste is censured; whether the son belongs to the begetter ( or to hing on whose wife he is begotten ); there can be no gift or sale of a child; partition during father’s lifetime and equal division; exclu siontrom inheritance of the impotent, lunatics and sinners ; the inheri- 1414८ in the absence OF son goes to nearest sapmda, then to the teacher and then to the pupil, or the daughter and ultimately to the king; the opinion Gi some that the largest share eoes to the eldest son is opposed to the Vedas; 10 partition between husband and Wife; usaves of countries and families not to be followed if opposed to the Vedas; impurity on death of agnates, cognates &c; gifts to be made at proper time, place and to proper person ; sidddhas ; times of sraddbay materials required at sraddha, food (including flesh ) appropriate ato क ; what Brahmanas are 10 be called at Srdddha ; the tour चर 445; rules about parivray 1. ९. sannyasin ; he duties of forest hermit ; praise of the meritorious and condem- nation of evil-doers; special rules about kings; founding of his capital and palace; position of the sabha@; extirpation of thieves; wifts of Jand and wealth to Brahmanas ; protection of people ; persons exempt from taxation, such as Srotriyas, women of all castes students and ascetics; punishment of young men for adultery ; punishment varied according as the woman w'onged was Arya or 7. Dharmasilira of Apastamba 37 Sadra; punishments for abuse and for homicide; punishments for various breaches of conduct; dispute between cowherd and master ; the perpetrator, the abettor and one who approves of the act are all guilty; who are to decide disputes; in case of doubt decision by inference and by divine proof ( ordeals ); punishment for perjury ; all other dharmas should be learnt, according to some, from women and people of all castes. Each of the two prasnas of the Apastamba-dharma-sitra 15 divid- ed into eleven patalas, there being 32 and 29 khaydikas in the two palalas respectively. The Dharmastitra is written in a more concise and compact style than that of Baudhayana and has more archaic and un-Paninean forms than any other extant Dbharmasttra. For cxample, the following are against the rules of Panini; Adhasana ( for adha asana ) in I. 1. 2. 21, aglarhsnu (1. 2. 3. 22), muhansca (1. 2. 8. 22), agrhvamana (1. 4. 12.8), sarvatopeta (for sarvata upeta ) in [. 6. 19. 9, sakhim (for sakhim ) in [. त. 21.9. Hara- datta points out in many places that the current reading was un- Paninean and therefore he read differently (५. g. in HL. 2. $. 2 he reads ‘viprakramana’, while the current reading was ‘viprakramina’)®. This makes it probable that in the original text there must have been many more un-Paninean forms than in the one preserved by Haradatta. “Fhere are many unfamiliar or rare words used by Apastamba, 1. ९. ananivoga (1. 6. 19, 12), anaiscirika ( 1. 8. 22. 1), Kartapatya (व. 2. 5. 32), vyupatoda and vyupajava (-‘pa’ ) in 1. 2.8. 15, brahmahasarhstuta (व . 32). We meet with strange forms of certain words, such as paryanta (J. 3. 9. 21), prasasta (II 8 3), anatvaya (I. 1.1. 21 for anatvaya ), brahmojjham Cior -ojjhah) in [. 7. 21. 8, Svavit (1. 5. 17. 37), sthewana CI. 1. 30. 19 for sthivana), acaryvadire (for -daresu ) in I. 2. 7. 27. Though the Ap. Dharmasntra is mainly in prose, there are verses here and there. Some of the verses are expressly stated to be taken from other sources by being introduced with the word ‘‘udaharanti” or with “athapyudaharanti” €. द. I. 6. 19. 13 (two Slokas from a Purana), 1. 6. 19. 15 ( compare Manu 8. 317 and Vas. 9. 44), 1. rr. उव. 1 J. tf. 32. 24, I. 4. 9. 13 (two verses, same as Baud. IT. 7. 22-23 ) 11. 7. 17. 8, 11. 6. 13. 6 (three verses almost the same as in Baud. II. 2. 34-36), IT. 9. 23. 4-5 (two Slokas from a Purina ) Besides these there are scveral isolated verses, most of which 83 प्रायेण मक्रारात्परमिक)।रमधीयते । तत्राप्येष एवार्थः । इकारस्त छान्द्सोपषाठो बा I’. 38 History of Dharmasastra seem to be quotations, though not introduced with words like “udaharanti”. They are [. 4. 14. 25, 1. 6. 19. 14 (the first pada of which is Manu 4. 212), I. 9. 27. 10, I. 9. 27.11 (same as Baud. IT.1 42), IL. 2. 4.14 (compare Manu TIT. rot). Some of these verses are defective in metre, there being nine syllables in one anustubh ‘pada as in 1.9. 27. 0, 1. 9. 23. 4-5, IL. 2. 4.14. One of the verses is in the classical Upajati metre (11. 7. 17. 18), while another closely approaches that metre ( {. 9. 27. r1 ). Besides these there are a few half-verses, IY. 5.11. 5-6 (same as latter half of Vanaparva 133.1), 1. 9. 21. ro (Manu 6. 43 has the first pada). Thus in all there are about twenty verses, of which at least six oce1r in Baudhayana. Some siitras that are printed as prose are parts otf verses, €. g. [. 2. 5. 11. Besides these there are several verses in the | patalas dealing with metaphysics (1. 8. 22. 4-8 and 1. 9. 23. 1-3 ) that are pieced together largely from Upanisad passages. Apastamba in several places employs the first person plural about himself%, e. g. I. 1.1.27, 1. 8. 22.3, 1.8.23. 4. Haradatta points out that in his day there was difference in the text as handed down in Northern and in Southern India.*: Apastamba quotes, besides the जक, the Brahmanas very fre- quently (९. ¢., 1. 1. 1 ro-rr, [. or. 3.9, Lor. 3. 26, 1 a es, 7.11, 1. 3. 10.8). He quotes the Vajasaneyaka (I. 5. 17. 31) and the Vajasaneyi-brahmana ( 1. 4. 12. 3 on svadhyaya ), he speaks of the Upanisads (11. 2.5.1), his quotations (IT. 2.3.16. 2. 4. 1-9 ) from the Tai. Aranyaka agree, according to पनि, with the text current in the Andhra country. He speaks of the six azgay of the Veda (11. 4. 8. 10) and in the next stitra cnumerates Chandas Kalpa, grammar, Jyotisa, Nirukta Siksa ( phonetics ) and Chandoviciti (metrics ), which are seven ( Siksa being probably. intended to be included in grammar). There ore passages in Apa- stamba which agree with the Nirukta, ८. g. ike definition of acaryas ४4 " आाषोडशाद AMIN... aA AAT समथः Spa a yeaa: y cy, 1. 1.1. श; नत्रात्मलःभीयात्नू -लकनद्‌।हरष्याएः' 1 ४. +; carey मुतदुाहोचन्नेषन्‌द्‌.ह- रिष्यामः' 1. 8. 25. 1 85 On the siitra अन्यच र्‌,हद्‌ शनात्‌ ( 7. 14. 295) hasags ५ उदी च्वारसवेतत्परायेण न Wed | तथाच पत्रने उ्ख्यानः 86 'यस्माद्‌मन।।चर्नति स WT श ~ f Foi. :. 14; । भा चार्यः कर्मः. दृचि म्यत TTT FED Se fet] |= tke} dig lay प्र । LAG {, 4 १2 « ate a ्रद्यत्कतमस्च नाह (quoted in निन iI, 5) 39 7. Dharmasttra of Apastamba He quotes the views of ten writers on dharma by name, viz. Eka (1. 6. 19. 7), Kanva (J. 6. 19. 3 and 1. 10. 28.1), Kanva (1. 6. 7), Kunika (1. 6. 19. 7), Kutsa (I. 6. 9.7); Kautsa (1. 6. 9. 4 and 7, 1.10. 28.1), Puskarasadi (1. 6. 19. 7, I. 19. 28. 1) Varsyayani ( 1. 6.19. 5 and 8, 1. 10. 28. 2), Svetaketu ( I. 4.13. 19 and I. 2. 5. 6 ), Harita (1. 4.13. 11, J. 6. 18. 2, I. 6. 9. 12, T. 28. 1, 5 and 16, J]. 10. 29. 12 and 16). Some of the names (viz. Kautsa, Varsyayani, and Puskarasadi ) occur in the Nirukta He quotes the view of Svetaketu) in) Svetaketu’s own words (in L. 4. 13. 20) that even a smarried man should every year stay with his teacher for two months to refresh his studies and gives it as his own opinion that Svetaketu’s view is opposed to the Sastras ( the Vedas ). In another place ( 1. 1. 4. 5-6 ) he speaks of Svetaketu as an avara (a person belonging to later ages ) and as ne who on account of the remnant of his meritorious actions done 111 १ dormer life or lives was able to erasp the four Vedas in 2 short time. 11 19 usual to stc in this a reference to Svetaketu in the Chandogya Upanisad (VI. 1. 1-2), where it is stated that Sveta- लाप mastered all the Vedas in twelve years. But this identification is somewhat of doubtful value. Apastamba quotes Svctaketu as a teache: of dharma. ‘The quotation from Svetaketu given by Apas- 1amba has nothing corresponding to it in the Upanisad. Besides the Chandogya Upanisad appcars 10 make a distinction between two Svctaketu’s (in VI. 1 and VT. 8), one being called Aruneya and the other Aruni (son of Aruna). Efarita, whose views arc cited so frequently, is quoted by Baudhiyana ( Tf. 1. 50 ) and also by Vasistha CIE. 6. ). From the two) sutras CT. 6.19. 3 and 7) it follows that Kanva and Kanva are two distinct writers. The Kum- bhakonam edition reads Kanva in J. 10. 28.1, while Bithler reads Kanva there. anya Bodhayana 15 a teacher, whose, name occurs in the pyilarpand in many works. The view ascribed to Kanva by Apastamba in J. 6. 19. 7 seems 10 be the same 25 that of the Baudhayana-dharmastitra (1. 2. 19१, ). It has been shown above that there are close parallels 11 thought and expression 8? ` कं आश्यान्नः । य हृष्सदिति कण्वः । ..- शुदा ea भाक्तभ्यककुणकां काण्वकृत्सो मथ) पुष्करसादि, | FUT. 1.6. 19. £, 3and7. Here various views on the question as to whose food shuuld he partaken by begging are set forth. Raudhayana says (ते वह्मणाय)।; स्वकमंस्था' which tallies with शुद्धा भिक्षा & ¢, | 40 History of .Dharmatistva between Baudhayana and Apastamba. In several places Apastamba seems to be controverting the views of Baudhayana or similar views held by others. Apastamba condemns the view of giving the paternal wealth to the cldest son as ‘opposed to the Vedas and explains the Vedic text ( Tai. ऽ. II. 5. 2. 7 quoted above ) about the eldest son being endowed with all wealth as a mere anuvada and and not a vidhi (vide Ap. Dh. $. IT. 6. 14. 6-13). Baudhayana cites both the texts of the ‘Tai. S. about equal division among sons and about the cldest son’s larger share and seems to favour the latter view by putting it last (II. 2. 2-7. ). Similarly the discussion in Apastamba (I.1. 4. 5-12 ) about a brabmacarin eating the leavings ( ucchista) of his guru, provided the things are not directly forbidden by Sruti, seems to be directed against Baudhayana (II. 1. 25-26). Although Apastamba does not expressly quote Gautama, he appears to have had before him the Gautama-dharma- sutra. He speaks of asmrti (II. 6. 15. 25 ) that lays down that upanayana confers adbikara on a man for gastric actions and that before upaiayana one is free to do anything and to eat anything. This, as interpreted by Haradatta, refers to Gautama (II.1 )**. There are striking coincidences between Gautama and Apastamba, €, g. Gaut. I. 19.=Ap. I. 1.1. 41 (about some teachers prescribing the yellow robe to a brabmacarin ), Gaut. I. 3 = Ap. 11.6. 13.7 ( about the violation of dharia by the great in former ages ), Gaut. 9. 52==Ap. I. 11. 31. 13), Gaut. 23. 9= Ap. 1. 9. 25. 2; Gaut. 16. 19 = Ap. I. 35 9. 14-15 ). Apastamba frequently refers to the views of his predecessors in the words ‘eke’? (I. 1. 2. 37, 38, 41: 14. 17 1. 2. $. 20; [ 2. 6.4: 1. 3.9. 3:0. 3.11. 3 &c.) and ‘aparam’ CII. 6. 15. 22 ). It is somewhat remarkable that in many of these cases ( where ‘eke’ occurs), the views are those either held by ` Gautama or ascribed by him also to others, €. g. Ap. I. 1. 2. 38 about the staff of a brabmacarin refers to Gaut. I. 2 3; Ap. 1. 1. 3. 41 is almost same as Gaut. I. 19, Ap. I. 2. 5. 20 seems to refer to Gaut. I. §4-59, Ap. 1. 3. 9. 3 (the view of some that Vedic study lasts for four months and a half) seems to refer to Gaut. 16. 2, and Ap. I. 3. 11. 3 ( about not studying after dining at a sacrifice for deities that are manusya-prakrti ) pointedly refers to Gaut. 16. 34. which contains the word ^ manusyayajnabhojana ’. Apastamba twice [0 1 = on ee ee ey = "भ भोयो oe eee ee oon, = ee er जो चद 88 अग्न CERT: शचर्भवति ॥ सा निष्ठा ॥ स्मृतिश्च । आष, ध, a. I. 6. 15, 28-25; ROMAN कामचारः कामवाद्‌ः कामभक्षः । अहुतात्‌ । बो, च, q. 7. 1-8 7, Dharmastitra of Apastamba 41 quotes verses from a‘Purina“(I. 6. 9. 13, II. 9. 23. 3 )and in one place gives in prose the view of a Purana (I. 10. 29. 7. )§. Apastamba (II. 9. 24.6) speaks of the view of a Bhavisyat- purgna ( about creation of the world after a periodic dissolution ) In one place Apastamba (II. 11. 29. 11-12) says that ‘the knowledge that exists ( traditionally ) among women and Stdras is the furthest limit of vidya and it is said to be a supplement of the Atharvaveda.’ Here he probably refers to Arthasastra, which according to the caranavyttha, is the Upaveda of the Atharvaveda. Apastamba refers ( II. 7. 16. 1 ) to Manu as founder of the institution of Sraddha. But this appears to be a reference to Manu, the mythical progenitor of mankind, and not to the Manusmrti. It is noteworthy that Apastamba ( II. 7. 17.8 ) quotes a verse, which is the same as AnuSasanaparva 90. 46 ( sambhojani nama &c. ). The Apastambadharmastitra stands in a peculiar relation to the Parvamimamsa. It is the only exiant Dharmasiatra that contains many of the technical terms and doctrines of the Mimarhsi. He says (I. 1. 4. 8 ) ‘a positive Vedic text is more cogent than an usage which merely leads to an inference (of its being based on a Vedic text now lost 9° >), This refers to Jaimini’s rule (I. 3.3) “‘ if there is a conflict between an express Vedic text and Smrti, the latter is to be disregarded : but if there be no conflict an inference (may be made that the Smrti is based upon some Sruti )’. In another place Apastamba says (1. 4. 12. 11) ‘where an action is done on account of finding pleasure theretrom (i. €. from a worldly motive >), there is no (inference of its being based on ) Sastra’. This isthe same as Jaimini’s teaching (1V. 1. 2 )9'. He speaks of the 89 यो हिंसाथमभिक्रान्तं हन्ति मन्युरेव मन्यं स्पृशति न तस्मिन्दीष इति पुराणे 1 आप. धः _ 1. 10. 29. 7; this seems to be a summery of a verse like the one in Baudh&yana ( 70. 8. I. 10, 12) and Vasistha ( 1, 18 ) ' स्वाध्यायिनं at ` जातं थो इन्यादाततायिननम्‌ । न तेन्‌ शरणा स स्यान्मन्युस्तं मन्युमृच्छति ॥ ' ( Baud. has geajqé कुले and Wrel भवति ). 9 ' gale बर्तीयस्यानुमानिकाद्‌ाचारात्‌" आप. ध. स्‌; “ विराधे त्वनपे्यं स्याद्सति छनु- मानम्‌" पू. मी. सू, Vide also “विप्रतिषेधे श्रुतिलक्षणं बलीयः आप्‌, ध, सू. I. 11. 30. 9 for the same position, ~ | 91 " यन्न तु प्रत्युपकाभ्धितः agit तन्न शाञ्जमस्ति ” अ।प.; यस्मिन्पीतिः पुरुषस्य तस्य लिष्ताथलस्षणावि WHEN › पृ, मी, सु. Vide also आप. ध. सु, I. 1. 4, 9-10 शदुश्यते आपि प्रषृत्तिकारणम्‌ । Aaserads’ ००० “Reaaay’ पू, मी. सू. 1. 8. 4. Ba By 6, 4g History of Dharmatistra convention ( samaya ) of those who know Nyaya (i. ©, Mimathsa) that 27625 ( such as the Kalpasitras are ) cannot be designated the Vedas ( which are the principal), which is clearly a reference to Parvamimarhsa (1, 3. 11-14 )9? and he says that those who know Nyaya lay down that a mere anuvdda (affirming or reciting ) of what is well-known to allis not a positive rule (a vidhi), which is similar to Jaimini’s rule}. The dictum of Apastamba that the word ०८ sale” ( kraya ) applied toa bride in some Vedic texts is merely figurative closely resembles Jaimini’s?* remarks on the same point. The remark of Apastamba that the rules of anadhyaya only apply to Vedic study and not to the recital of mantras at sacrifices corresponds to a rule in [17110195 almost in the same words. These examples show that in Apastamba’s day Mimarhsa doctrines had been far advanced and that works existed that dealt with Mimarhsa topics (Nyayas). ‘The correspondence in language with the Purva- mimarhsasttra is so close that one is tempted to advance the view that Apastamba knew the extant Mimarhsa-sttra or an earlier version of it that contained almost the same expressions. It cannot be said that all these passages are later interpolations. They have all been explained by Haradatta and one of the sutras referring to Mimarns& topics occurs in so early a work asthe commentary of Visvaraipa (on १}. 1. 7) who quotes “Brahmanokta vidhayah”. (Ap. I. 4. 12.10). The last passage is quoted by Medhatithi also (on Manu II. 6 ) The dharmasttra of Apastamba has been quoted from very ancient times as authoritative. Sabara in his bhasya on Jaimini VI. 8. 18 quotes one sutra of Apastamba and a paraphrase of another.9% The Tantravartika refers to the sitras of Apastamba about local and [१ ate oe — ee - >, नक 9४ “अङ्गानां त॒ प्रधानरेष्यपदेश इति ल्यायवित्समयः । ' आप. ध. सू. 71. 4.8. 18 93 “अथापि नित्यानुवादमविधिमाहुन्यायविद्‌ः' आप. ध. सु. 1. 6. 14. 13 ; ‹ अर्थवादो वा विधिशषत्वाचश्मन्नित्यानुवाद्‌$ प्‌, मी, सू. VI. 7. 0 9५ तस्यां ्रथशब्द्‌; संस्तुतिमात्रम्‌ । MAR सम्बन्धः | आप. ध. सु. 71. 6. 19. 19-18; कयस्य धर्ममान्नत्वम्‌ प मी सू VI.1.15 95 ‘feet प्रत्यनभ्यायः श्रूयते न कर्मयोगे मन्त्राणाम्‌" भप. घ. सू. 1. 4. 19,95 “विथ प्रति विधानाद्रा AES प्रयागः स्थात्कमांथत्वात्रयोगस्य' पू. मी. सू. 2. 3. 19. 96 “अथव स्मृतिः “धर्मे च अथं च कमे च नातिचरितध्या' इति, “धर्मभजासपनने दुरे नाभ्या pater’ इति ख एवामिद्मपि स्मर्यत एव ' अन्यतरापाये अन्यां कर्ति इति ।* शरं, ००५ ‹धमेपरजासम्यन्ने द्रे नान्यां कुर्वीत । अभ्यतराभाषे काथ भगे्विलात्‌ I, 8, 41. 12-18. 7”, Dharmasttra of ‘Apastamba 48 family usages,97 about drinking wine and about the conflict between . the views of Baudhayana’and Apastamba (vide above page 26 also ). Sankaracarya in his 01404 on Brahmasatra IV. 2. 14 quotes Apastamba I. 7. 20. 3 (about the planting of trees for fruit as a meritorious act and the collateral benefits of shade and fragrance ), He also cites (on Brahmasitra II. 1. 1.) about the supreme soul a half verse from Apastamba (I. 8. 23. 2228. In his bhasya on Brhadaranyaka, he cites Ap. 00. 5.1. 5. 15.1 ( upasane guranam &c. ). The two patalas of Apastamba (I. 8. 22 and 23) dealing with adhyatma (philosophy) were commented upon by Sankaricarya, who, from the general style and method of the commentary (vide Trivandrum edition of the adhyat- mapatala), seems to be the same as the great Acarya. Suregvara in his Vartika (1. 1. 97 >) on Sankara’s bhasya on the Brha- daranyakopanisad quotes the sitra about the planting of mango ( Apastamba I. 7. 20. 3 99) trees. Visvaripa, who according to ‘Madhava, was the same as SureSvara,'°° quotes ( Trivandrum edition) in his commentary on Yajfiavalkya (4cira and vyavahara only) Apastamba’s satras about twenty times. The quotations show that the text of Apastamba was identical with the one printed, barring a few variations that are no more than mere slips on the part of the scribes of Mss. In his commentary on Y4j. III 237 Visvaripa quotes eighteen sitras of Apastamba (I. 9. 24. 6-23 ) consecutively which are the same as those in the printed text. Medhatithi quotes Apastamba Il. 5. 11. 2, Il. 4. 7. 16, II. 8. 19. 20, I. 4. 14. 30-31 on Manu II, 247, III. 102, III. 273 and VIII 357 respectively and appears to refer to Apastamba I. 4. 13. 6 (about “om”) on Manu 7. 83. The Mitaksara has several quotations and Apararka contains 97 aoserfaes 7. 188 “प्रतिदेशं व्यवस्थया । आपस्तम्धेन संहृत्य दुष्टादुष्टत्वमादृतम्‌ I’. This ४85 17 view “एतेन देशकालधमो भ्याख्याताः' आप. ध. सृ, 7. 6. 15. 1; "यापि चपस्तम्बस्मरतिवचनासुल्यवलत्वादाङ्का मवेत्सापि तस्माद्‌ बाह्मणः सुरां न TAR एतेन प्रत्यक्षश्वतिविभिना निराष्तेति नेवं विपाचारपरामाण्यमाशङ्कितन्यम्‌.' 9 परमात्मानमेव प्ररूत्यापस्तम्यः पठति "तस्मात्कायाः प्रभवन्ति सर्वे स मूलं शाश्वतिकः स नित्य. 09 आनने wert इत्यादि छापस्तम्बस्सतेेषः | फलवस्वं समाचरे नित्यानामपि कर्मणाम्‌ | . आपस्तम्ब words are ‹ तद्यथा आम्रे फलार्थे निमिते छाया Mot इत्यनुष्पयेते एवं धर्मं अ्थेमाणमथां अनूत्ययन्ते । ` 100 Vide my article in JBBRAS for 1929 pp.'205-206. 4 | 2४2८ of Dharmatigiva about two hundred stitras of Apastamba, though rather in a mutilated form. But it is not necessary to refer to these and other later works in detail, since Haradatta’s commentary, as will be shown later on, was wtitten about the time of Apararka. Thus from the days of Sabara ( 500 A. D. at the latest ) to rr00 A. D. we have a host of writers who vouch for the authenticity of the extant text of Apastamba. About the home and personal history of Apastamba little isknown. Apastamba is not an ancient name. It does not occur in the Vedic texts. Jt occurs in the gaya “Bidadi? in Panini IV. 1. 164. He speaks of himself as belonging to later ages (avara). Vide Apa- stamba'?! I. 2. $. 4. and II. 6. 13. 9. In the tarpaya he is generally mentioned after Bodhayana and before Satyasidha Hiranyakesin (vide note 68a above). Therefore according to tradition his school was elder or more authoritative than that of Hiranyakesin. In one place Apastamba refers to a peculiar griddha usage of the udicyas (II. 7. 17, 17).!° Apastamba must be supposed to have embodied in his work the usages of his own country. If he specially mentions the usages of a particular locality, it would follow that he did not hail from that locality. But the exact meaning of ^ Udicya ” is doubtful. Haradatta quotes a verse of the grammarians, according to which the country north of the Sarivati was called (ववादः, According to the Maharnava quoted in the commentary on the caranavytha the Apastambiyas were to be found to the south of the Narmada, in the south-east, that is, in Andhra and the territory about the mouth of the Godavari. Thereforc it is natural to suppose that Apastamba’s school had its origin in the south and probably in Andhra. The Pallavas made land erants to Apastambiyas. Vide I. A. vol. ४, page 155. The age of the Apastamba-dharmasttra can be settled within only approximate limits. It is probably later than the Gautama Dharma- sitra and also the Baudhayayanadharmasadtra and before 500 A. D. it was an authoritative smrti work according to Sabara. Apa- stamba is enumerated by Yajiiavalkya as a writer on dharma (I. $ ) 101 ^तस्मादुषयोऽवरषु न जायन्ते नियमातिक्रमात्‌ ४०० ^तद्न्वी्य युजानः सीदत्यवरः. 102 उदीख्यवृत्तिस्त्वासनगतानां हस्तेषुद्पात्रानयनम्‌ | ०० this हृरद says शरावया उद्‌- कीरवासिन उदी्यास्तेषां वृत्तिराचारः. ह. / 1. 0 / “ and by Sarfkha-Likhita, Its style and grammar ( which is un- Paninean in the extreme ) entitle it to great antiquity. There is no clear reference to Buddhism and other schisms anywhere. It appears to look upon Svetaketu as not far removed from its own epoch. It was probably written at a time when Jaimini had founded his school. Hence we shall not be far wrong if we assign it to some period between 600--300 B. C. On several points his views are opposed to those of his predecessors, €. g. he rejects secondary sons, condemns niyoga, does not admit Paisaca and Prajapatya as valid forms of marriage ( vide above page 29 ). There are other points also wherein Apastamba differs from Gautama and the other sitra- karas. Gautama (IV. 14-17 ) and Baudhiayana (I. 8. 7-12) give long lists of mixed castes and Gautama includes Yavana among them. Apastamba is silent on this point. But this has hardly any bearing on chronology. Even the Vedic works mention the Nisada and the Parvamimarhsastitra has a special adhikarana ( VI. 1. 51) devoted to him ; the Br. Upanisad mentions (IV. 3. 22 and 37) such castes as Candala, and the Gita mentions the Svapika. The Ap. Srauta speaks of the Nisdda ( 9. 4. 12-13). The Ap. Dh. S. CII. 1. 2. 6) mentions Candala, Paulkasa and Vaina. Gautama ( 17. 30 ) forbids the cating of the flesh of cows and bulls, while Ap. (I. 5. 7. 30-31) seems to allow it and cites the Vajasanevaka for support. In this connection it has to be noted that _Vasistha also has a similar sutra (14. 46). Ap. (I. 9. 27.10) prescribes 1 penance for one who practises usury and lays down that one should not eat at.the usurer’s (I. 6. 18. 22 ), while Gautama appears to allow usury to a Brahmana as a calling if done through an agent (X. 6). Baudhayana, on the other hand, quotes verses that condemn usury in strong language as even worse than brahmahatya, holds that a Brahmana who is a usurer should be treated as a Sidra and allows the first two castes to practise usury only towards atheists, Stidras and such like persons (1. 5. 79-81 ). So these differences of Ap. from others are hardly conclusive as to his chronological position. व Che commentary of Haradatta called Ujjvala-vrtti is the only one so far recovered.. For an account of Haradatta, vide sec. 86. The Smrticandrika (I, page 25 ) quotes a passage from the bhasya of Apastamba (II. 6. 15. 19-20) and (II. p. 300) quotes the explanation of the bhasyakaraon Apastamba II. 6 14. 1. Both these passages ae History of Dharmattstra are not found in the commentary of Haradatta, though in the latter case, Haradatta ‘holds the same view as that of the Bhasyakara. Similarly the Viramitrodaya ( Vyavahara, page 671 ) quotes the bhasyakara of Apastamba, but that quotation does not agree with Haradatta. Haradatta himself does not call his work bhasya, but vrtti. Besides the Subodhini on the Mitaksara (on Yaj. II. 132) quotes a passage from the Apastambadharmavrtti which is found in Haradatta on Ap. II. 6. 14. 1. Haradatta himself cites sometimes two or three other interpretations of the same अप्त (९. g. on Ap. I. 2, $. 2; 1. 3. 10. 6; 1.5. 15. 20; Il. 2. 3. 16). So the bhasyakara was probably one of his predecessors. In Apararka, Haradatta, Smrticandrika and other works there are numerous quotations in verse ascribed to Apastamba. These quotations are concerned with topics of Ahnika, Sraddha, and Praya- Scitta, ‘The Smrticandrika ( TIL. pp. 423 and 426 ) quotes a Stotra- pastamba. Haradatta on Gautama ( 22. 18 ) quotes several verses on prayascitta from Apastamba. Three of these verses are found in the Apastamba-smrti in verse (Jivananda’s collection vol. I pp. 567-584 chap. I verses 16, 19, 31). The Smrti printed by Jivananda contains ahout 207 verses in ten chapters on prayascitta and purifications. But the quotations from the Smrticandrika and Apararkra show that the verse Apastamba was a much larger work and since they regarded the versified work as equally authoritative with the siitra work, the versified smrti must have been comparae tively an ancient work. 8. Hiranyakesi-dharmasutra. The Hiranyakesi-dharmastitra forms the 26th and 27th prasnas of the Hiranyakesi-kalpa. The Srauta stra has been published by the Anandasrama Press ( Poona ). The Hiranyakesi-grhya-sitra was edited with extracts from the commentary of Matrdatta by Dr. Kirste ( Vienna, 1889 ). The Grhya forms the r9th and 20th prasnas of the Kalpa, cach prasna being divided into eight patalas. The Srauta-sitra is largely based on the Srauta-satra of Apastamba. The Grhya-sitra is indebted to the Grhya-sitra of Bharadvaja. The Dharmasatra of Hiranyakesin can hardly be called an independent work, Hundreds of sitras are borrowed word for word from the Apastamba Dharmasitra. The Dharmasatra of Hiranyakesin is therefore the oldest voucher for the authenticity of Apastamba’s text and is very valuable for checking the latter, 8, H tranyaketi-Diarmastira 4? The HiranyakeSins form a satra-carana of the Khandikeya section of the Taittiriyasakha and were formed later than the Apastambiya School. In a grant of the Kongu kings dated in 454 A. D. Brahmanas of the Hiranyakesi School are mentioned (I. A. vol. V. page 136 ). According to the Maharnava quoted in the commentary of the caranavyiha, the Hiranyakesins were to be found in the south-west between the Sahya mountain and the ocean and near Parasurama (i.e. in the Konkan). There are at present many ‘Brahmanas in the Ratnagiri District who call themselves Hiranya- kesins. The Dattaka-mimarhsa of Nanda-pandita twice quotes pass- ages from the commentary of Sabarasvamin on the siitra of Satyasidha. If he was identical with the great commentator of the Parva-mimarhsa ( which is almost certain ), then we have unimpeachable evidence for the existence of the works of the Hiranvakegins long before the fifth century A. D, Bihler in his second edition of the Apastamba-dharmasttra ( 1893 ) gave (in appendix II) the various readings of the Hiranya- kesi-dharmastitra from two MSS. -I secureda modern transcript of the Hiranyakesi-dharmasutra from the Deccan College collection ( No 138 of 1881-82 ), which contains the text and also the commentary of Mahadeva thereon. There are 18 folios forthe siitra and 1o1 for the commentary. That ms. presents some readings which are not noticed by Buhler as found in the two mss. consulted by him. For example, the ms. reads ^ saptama ayuskamamastame brahmavarca- sakamam (reversing the order of years in Ap. I. 1. 1. 21-22), omits the words ^" yadi snayaét dandavat plavet’ (from Ap. I. 1. 2. 30. ), reads ‘vastranyeva vasitobhaya &c.’( Ap. I. 1. 3. 9 omits vasita ), reads ‘ gurave ’ for < acaryaya’ in Ap. I 3-31. The ms. of the Hiranyakesi-dharmasiatra contains certain additions to the stitras of Apastamba. For example, a satra ‘ ksaralavana-madhvu- marhsani ca varjayet’ is added -after Ap. II. 9. 22. 14, a sttra “tegam piaja Sreyasyatmanah karya’ occurs after Ap. Il. 9. 25. 8, and the sitra ‘sarva-dharminam svadharmanusthandniyamesu a yuktah syat’ occurs after Ap. II. 9. 25. 13. The manuscript con- tains a few verses, that are not found in the Apastambadharmasatra, introduced by the words ‘athapyudaharanti'®3,’ (except in one case ~~ [ भण ऋ ह कि 9. 1 | eee Se! 7 1 [क ee ee er ae [ 103 « पशवश्च TRAM अश्मा जालवणेधर (द)तः। एतद्‌ बराह्मण ते पण्यं तन्तुग्यारजनी कृतः ॥ ` after आष, ध, चू. 1 १, 21 ५; genes कुले जातं बो Paras | ‘48 History of Dharmattsira viz. ‘putrena, &c.) The manuscript also omits certain sitras found in Ap. e. g. ‘varnajyayasam cetarair varnaih’ (Ap. Il. 5. 11.8), < anyatra rahudarsanat’ (Ap. II. 7.17.25 ), ‘ athopanayanaim tata udakopasparsanam ’ (Ap. I. 1. 1. 36. ). In the case of some अप्र the readings of Hiranyakesin present a smoother and more classical Sanskrit than that of Apastamba and are manifestly attempts to bring them in a line with the requirements of the Sistas at the time when the Apastambasatras were taken over into the HiranyakeSi school. Hiranyakesisdtra has ‘padonam’ and ‘ardhonam’ for ‘padinam’ and ‘ardhena’ of Apastamba (I. 1. 2. 13-14 ), ‘asandargane’ for ‘asandarse’ (Ap. I. 1. 2. 29), ‘aglanih’ for ‘aglarhsnuh’ ( Ap. I. 1. 3. 22 ), ‘praksalayet’ for ‘praksalayita’ ( Ap. I. 1. 3. 36), ‘kartrpatyam’ for ‘kartapatyam’ ( Ap. I. 2. 5.3.) ‘yathaéakti’ for ‘Saktivisayena’ ( Ap. II. 5. 12. 1). Another noticeable feature is thatthe arrangement of the sutras into subsections is a good deal different in the two works. Bithler notes that from the 13th khandika ( 6th patala) of the second prasna both the manuscripts consulted by him do not indicate the pajalas. ‘The Deccan College manuscript does not number them from the second patala in the second prasna. ‘The number of patalas in the first prasna of Hiranyakesi is eight, while Apastamba has eleven patalas in each of the tao prasnas. The distribution of sitras in the khandikas is therefore differentin the two works. Hiranyakesi has 31 khandikas in the first prasuaand 20 inthe second. Besidesa few of the khandikas are differently placed. The first khandika of Hiranyakesi (first prasua ) stops after Ap. I. 1, 2. 1, the third reaches up to Ap. 1. 1.4.6; Ap. I. 8. 22 and 23 (the adhyatmapatala ) come in Hiranyakesi immediately after Ap. 1. 6. 19 and are Hiranya. 1.6.20; Ap. 1. 7. 20 and 21=Hir. I. 6. 21-22; Ap. I. 9. 24 and 25. 1--4= प्रि, 1. 6. 23 ; Ap. I. 9. 25. 4-13 and I. 9. 26. r-ro=Hir. L. 7. 24; Ap. I. 9. 26. 11-14 and I. 9. 27 = प्रौ. 1.7. 25; Ap. L 10. 28=Hir. 1.7. 26; Ap. { वा, 31, 1-10=Hir. 1,8. 29; Ap. 1. 11. 31. 11-23= मी te oe = ॥ ए we ee न तेन भूणहा भवानि मन्युस्तं मन्युमृच्छतीति | which is दिरण्यकेशे 1.17. 27, 8 and comes after आप, ध. सु. 1.10. 29. 7; पत्रेण लोकाजयति पोन्रेणाम॒तं सूते । अथ पुत्रस्य पोत्रेण प्रापनोति अरष्नस्य विष्टपम्‌ ॥ दोहिमिस्तत्मतिमुञ्ति यत्पापं महद्भयम्‌ | आह्देवास्त्वधिकारिणः ॥ after आप. 77. 5. 12. 4; 'वेदष्यायी qatar ज्ये- सामिकः । बाह्यदेयानुसन्तानी पर्ने पद्धिपावनाः ॥ ` after आप, ध. सू. प. 7.11. a. The verse अव्यापक is quoted in Baud. Dh. 8, 7, 10, 13 and Vas. III. 18 ond for pstoy -& ५, compare wa 9. 137.. 8 Hiranyakeé-Dharmasiiira 49 Hir. I. 8. 30. In the second prasna the variance in distribution of sittras into khandikas is still greater. Besides Ap. II. 4. 8-9 are placed in Hiranyakesi before Ap. II. 3. 6-7 and Ap. Il. 6. 13-15 before Ap. II. 5. 10-11. Sometimes a single satra of Apastamba is split up into two and placed in two different khandikas, €. g. Ap. 1. 9. 25. 4 15 split into Hir. I. 6. 23. 31 and I. 7. 24. 1 (the portion from ‘rajanam gatva’ being the first satra of Hiranyakesi’s 24th Khandika. The com. of Mahadeva Diksita called Ujjvala, is almost word for word the same as that of Haradatta’s Ujjvala. That one has borrowed from the other admits of no doubt and Bihler thinks that Mahadeva isthe borrower. But there is hardly anything to turn the scale in favour of Haradatta. Sometimes Mahadeva’s commentary contains more matter than Haradatta’s ( €. g. on the stitras ‘ Saptame brahma- rcasakamam &c, ‘ Upanayanam vidyarthasya Srutitah’, ‘ dvadaga- varardhyam ’) and sometimes Haradatta contains more explanation (€, g. on ^ tasminsca vidyakarmantam &c.;0n ‘napsu slaghamanah snayat’, on ‘panisarnksubdhenodakenaika &c.’). Mahadeva differs from Haradatta’s explanation of the word ‘atha’, which the former takes in the sense of ‘ anantarya or adhikara’, while the latter takes it only in the sense of ‘anantarya’. That Mahadeva also is an early writer follows from the fact ( noted by Buhler p.117n ) that por- tions of his commentary are contained in the Munich Ms. of Hara- datta dated Vikrama-Sarhvat 1668 (1611-12 A.D.). It is to be notéd that Haradatta after saluting Ganega at the beginning of his Ujjvala does obeisance to Mahadeva ( which may mean God Siva or the author Mahadeva ifhe was the guru or father of Haradatta) Mahadeva often comments on the sutras as found in Apastamba and not on the readings of them as existing in the Hiranyakesi school ; e.g. he comments on ‘ paddnam’, on ‘ adhasanasayi’ for ardhasana- Sayi ( the reading of the satra ), on ‘ atmasvastyayanarthena’ ( Ap. 1, 5.11.9) for ‘svastyayanarthena’ of the ms. of Hir. The explanations of the two writers sometimes differ, as for example on ‘ acaryadhinas syad-anyatra pataniyebhyah’ ( Ap. I. 1. 2. 19! ). One more circumstance that is worthy of note is that the Ujjvala of Haradatta does not contain many quotations from Smftis as com- 104 इददृत्त oxplains ‹ आचार्याधीनो भवेत्युपनयनान्ते यत्संश्ाकतनं तत्सि्धेवाचा्याषीनता- FOS, while महदिव makes it a विधि 'आचायोधीनतया रथातभ्पमिनि विधिः”, He De qe | History of Dharmasietra pared with his commentary on the Gautamadharmasatra. Although one may be inclined to hold that it is Mahadeva who borrows, it must be clearly recognized that there is hardly any positive evidence in support of such a vicw. There is a commentary called Vaijayanti on the Hiranyakesi-srauta-sdtra. This Mahadeva is very likely ‘dentical with the Mahadeva who commented upon the dharmasatra. 9. Vasistha-dharmasutra. This dharmasntra has been printed several times. The collection of Jivananda ( part II, pp. 456-496 ) contains only 20 chapters and a portion of the 21st and so does the collection of Mr. M. N. Dutt (Calcutta 1908 ). The Anandagrama collection of smptis ( 1905, pp. 187-231 ) and the edition of Dr. Fuhrer in the B. S. series ( 1916 ) contain thirty chapters. According to Dr. Jolly (R.uS., p. 6 ) some niss. give only six or ten chapters. The Vasisthadharmasuitra with the commentary called Vidvanmodini was printed at Benares. In the following Dr. Fuhrer’s edition has been used. Kumiarila ( vide note 55 above ) tells usthat the dharmasitra of Vasistha was specially studied by the students of the Rgveda, but that along with other dharmasitras it is authoritative for all caragas. No Srauta and grhya sutras of Vasistha, if they ever existed, have come down to us. We have therefore to fall back upon one of two hypotheses, viz. either the dharmasiitra of Vasistha is the solitary remnant of a school that might have once possessed a complete kalpa or that it was composed as an independent work on dharma and was subsequently seized upon by the students of the Rgveda, who had only srauta and grhya satras of Agvalayana. For reasons given elsewhere I incline to the latter view. The dharmasatra of Vasistha cites quotations from all Vedas and beyond the name Vasistha there is hardly anything special in the dharmasitra to connect it with the Rgveda. It is true that in the 17th chap. several verses of the Rgveda (such as I. अ, $, I. 124.7, V. 4.10 which occur in sutras, 3, 16 and 4 respectively ) and several passages from the story of Sunadsepa in the Aitareyabrahmana are quoted by the sitra and that several hymns of the Rgveda, such as the asyavamlya (Rg. 1. 164 ), havispantiya (Rg. X. 88), Aghamarsana ( X. 190 ), are referred to in the 26th chap. But there is nothing remarkable in this as some of the verses and saktas are mentioned in the Bav- dhayanadharmasitra also. Besides the Vas. Dh. 5; quotes several 9. Vasistha-dharmastira 5 passages from the Taittiriyasarhhita ( 25 in Vas. V. 7-9, which quotes Tai. ऽ. Il. $. 1. 6 and Vas. XI. 48 which quotes Tai. S. VI. 3. 10. 5), the Satapatha-brahmana, the Maitrayniya-sarhhita (in Vas. I. 37 ). The contents of the Vas. Dh. S. are :— I Definition of Dharma, limits of Aryavarta, who are sinners, the mortal sins, a brahmana can marry a girl of any of the three higher castes, six forms of marriage, the king was to regulate the conduct of people and to take the sixth part of wealth as a tax; II. The four varuas, the greatness of dcarya, before upanayana there is no authority for religious rites, the privileges and duties of the four castes, in distress a Brahmana could subsist by resorting to the calling of a Ksatriya or Vaigya, a Brahmana was forbidden to sell certain things, usury ‘condemned, rates of interest allowed ; III. Censure of illiterate Brahmana, rules on finding treasure-trove, who are dtatayins, when they could be killed in self-defence, who are panktipavanas, constitution of a parisad, rules about acamana, sauca and purification of various substances ; IV. The constitution of the four castes is based upon birth and the performance of samskéras, the duties common to all castes, honour- ing guests, madhuparka, impurity on birth and death ; V. dependence of women, rules of conduct for a rajasvala; VI. usage is transcendene tal dharma, praise of dcara, rules about answering calls of nature, moral characteristics of a brahmana and the peculiar characteristics of a Sidra, censure of partaking food at the houses of Sidras, rules of etiquette and good breeding ; VII the four 4Sramas, and the duties of a student; VIII. Duties of an householder, honouring guests, IX. rules for forest hermits ; X. rules for sarnnyasins ; XI. six persons who deserve special honour, viz. the priest at the sacrifice, son-in-law, king, paternal and maternal uncles and a sndtaka ; order of prece- dence in serving food, guests, rules about sraddha, times for it, the brahmanas to be invited at it, rules about agnihotra, upanayana, the proper time, staff, girdle &c. for ; method of begging for alms, prayascitta for those whose upanayana is not performed ; XII. rules of conduct for a s#ataka; XIII. rules about the beginning of Vedic study, rules about holidays for Vedic studies, rules about falling at the feet of the guru and others, guiding principles in precedence as regards respect (learning, wealth, age, relationship, avocation, each Prior deserving more consideration than each succeeding one ), rule of the road ; XIV. rules about forbidden and permitted food, rules about the flesh of certain birds and animals; XV. rules of adoption, 92 Fistory of Dharmasdstra about excommunication of those who revile the Vedas or perform sacrifices of §tidras and for other sins; XVI. About administration of justice, king as guardian of minors, threefold pramanas, viz. documents, witnesses and possession ; rules about adverse possession and about king’s advisers; qualifications of witnesses; perjury con- doned in certain cases; XVII. praise of aurasa son; conflicting views about fsetraja son, viz. whether he belongs to the begetter or to him on whose wife he is begotten ; twelve kinds of sons ; partition between brothers, grounds of exclusion from partition, rules of niyoga, rules about grown-up unmarried girl, rules of inhe- ritance, king as ultimate heir; XVIII. pratiloma castes such as candala, no Vedic studies for stdras or in their presence ; XIX. king’s duty to protect and to punish ; importance of purohita ; XX. about praya- Scittas for various acts unknowingly or knowingly done ; XXI. prayascitta for adultery by Sidra and others with women of the Brahmana caste or for cow-killing ; XXII. prayascitta for eating for- ‘bidden food and sacred texts that purify in case of sins; XXIII. penances for Brahmacérin having sexual intercourse, for drinking wine &c.; XXIV. Krechra and Atikrcchra; AXV. secret penances and penances for lesser sins; XXVI-VII. virtues of pranayama, “Vedic hymns of Gayatri as purifiers; XXVIII. praise of women, eulogy of Vedic mantras like aghamarsaya and of gifts; XXIX. rewards of gifts, brahmacarya, tapas &c. ; XXX. eulogy of dharma, truth and brahbmaia. The Vas. Dh. S. resembles in several respects the other dharma- satras described above. It contains almost the same subjects and is similarly composed in prose interspersed with verses. The Vas, Dh. S. is in style like the Gautamadharmasitra and has many sttras identical with or closely resembling those of the latter. Vide. p. 18 above. It has also several siitras closely corresponding with the sutras of Baudhayana. Grave doubts have been entertained about the authenticity of the whole of the text of the Vas. Dh. S. as the mss. contain varying numbers of chapters from 6 to 30, and as the text is hopelessly corrupt in several places (e. £, vide note 108 below ). The Vas. Dh. S. contains many verses which bear the impress of a comparatively late age. Chapters 25-28 are entirely in verse, while there are other chapters ( like III. 2-12, VI. 1-13, XI, 20-42 ) which contain many verses interposed between prose passages. In this respect Vasishtha’s work is on a-par with Bau- 9. Vasietha-dharmasiltra 58 dhayana’s, in the fourth pragna of which there are chapters entirely consisting of verses. It has therefore been argued that the text‘of Vasistha was tampered with freely, particularly as regards the chap- ters at the end. But as shown below it will have to be admitted that the interpolations, whatever they may be, were made at a very early period. The Mitaksara quotes Vas. by name about 80 times and the quotations are taken from almost every chapter from the first to the last. For example, Mit. quotes Vas. 27.1 0n ४}. Ill. 311, Vas. 27. 21 on ४). III. 324, Vas. 28.7 on Yaj. HI. 298, Vas, 28. 18, 19 and 22 on ४३}. III. 310. Even Medhatithi quotes Vasistha over twenty times. The quotations are mostly taken from the first chapter to the 21st. Only one quotation from the last few chapters ( viz. 27. 16 ) has been found in Medhatithi ( on Manu XI. 211) and that too is not quoted as Vasistha’s, but is ascribed to ‘others.’ Visvarapa, who flourished about the first quarter of the 9th century quotes Vas. about thirty times in his commentary on the acara and vyavahdra sections of Y4j. These quotations hardly differ in any respect from the text of Dr. Fihrer’s edition and are scattered over almost all chapters from the 1st to the 17th, six quotations being taken from chapters 3 and 17 each. In the prayascitta section Visvaripa quotes Vas. even more frequently. Resides several sutras from the rst, 4th, roth and rth chapters, he quotes here no less than 22 sittras of the 2oth chap. and 9 of the 215. Moreover sutras 37 and 39 of the 23rd chap. are quoted Con Yaj. IY 281-282 ). What is more remarkable is that two verses ( 2-3 ) of the 28th chapter are ascribed to Vasistha and explained in detail ( on Yaj. III. 256 ), while Vas. 28. 4is quoted without the author’s name. These facts make it certain that the Vas. Dh. S. contained in Visvaripa’s day all the chapters from the first to the 23rd and also the 28th. Sankara in his bhasya in Br. Upanisad (1. $. 1 ) quotes Vas. X. 4 and on Br. Up. IV. 5. 15 he quotes Vas. VII. 3. The Vas. Dh. S. quotes numerous verses preceded by the words ‘athapyudaharanti’, which is the case with Baudhayana also. Several verses occur without these words being prefixed, but most of them seem to be quotations (e. g. Vas. II. 3 which combines Manu. II-169 and 170, IV. 6 which is Manu 5. 41, VI. 6 and 8 which are Manu IV. 157 and 158). Some of these verses introduced with the words ‘ athapi’ &c. as well as some of those not so introduced are in the regular classical Upajati, Upen- dravajra or Indravjra (vide. I. 38, X. 20 for verses with athapi &¢, ध्व Fatory of Dharmatiisira and VI, 9 and 25, X.17, XVI. 36 for verses without them), Some of the verses are in the ancient Tristubh form (e.g. VI. 3 and 30, VII. 17, XVII. 71 ). In one verse (VI. $ ) there are twelve letters in the first pada and 11 in the rest. One quotation with the words ०० athapi” &c. is in prose (II.5 ). There are a few un-Paninean forms like ‘Vivadanti’ in XIV.47 (vide Paninil. 3.47 ). It looks as if the dharmasitra once ended with the 24th chapter, where we have an injunction (in sitra 6 ) against imparting the dharmasitra to one who is nota son or pupil. The same अप्य occurs in Baudha- yana Dh. ऽ. IV. 4. 9 and the succeeding satra is the same in both. But the words ‘ prayascitta has been described in the rahasya sections for playing false to the husband’ ( in Vas. V. 4) apparently refer either to chapters 25-28 (which contain rabasya penances ) or to some prototype of those chapters now lost. The Vas. Dh. S. quotes largely ftom the Rgveda and other Vedic Samhitas. Among the Brahmanas, the Aitareya and Satapatha are frequently cited. The Vajasaneyaka ( Vas. 12. 31 and 23. 13 ) and the Kathaka (Vas, 12. 24 and 30. 5 ) are mentioned by name. The Tai. Aranyaka is quoted in Vas. 23. 23. The Upanisads and Vedanta occur in 22. 9. Vasistha quotes a ८0170 of the Bhillavins from their Nidana work about the extent of the home of Brahmanism, which is quoted by Baudhayana also ( Dh. S.I. 1.27). He speaks of the 4145 of the Veda ( 3. 23 and 13. 7 ) and gives their number as six (3.19). Itihdsa and Purana are mentioned in 27. 6. The science of words ( grammar ), of omens and portents and of astrology and astronomy ( Naksatravidya ) are referred to in 10. 20-21. He prohibits the learning of the language of the Mlecchas (in 6. 41 ) Vas. quotes a verse that states that the view holding the apramayya of the Vedas leads to perdition (12. 41). In Vas. Il. 8-11 occurs the Vidydsakta in four verses that we meet with in the Nirukta ( Il. 4). Vasistha calls his own work dharmagastra ( in 24. 6) and probably refers to other works on dharma in the words ‘one who studies dharmas’ ( in 3. 19 ). The study of dharmagastra as a penance for even mortal sins is spoken of in 27. 19. Vas. quotes several authors on dharmasastra. He quotes a verse from Harita Cin II. 6 ) which occurs in Baudhayana also with slight variations ( Baud. Dh. S. 1.2.7), though without the authors name. The two halves of this verse are almost the same as thé latter halves of Manu. 2. 171-172. Buhler is therefore not quite accurate when he 9. Vasietha-dharmaatira 86 says without qualification that the verse attributed to Harita occurs in Manu ( p. XX, S. B. E. vol. XIV). Vas. quotes Gautama twice (in 4. 35 and 37 ) about impurity on death, the first corresponding to Gautama ( 14. 41 ), while there is nothing in Gautama to correspond tothe 2nd. Vas. quotes a verse (11. 20) which mentions Yama by name and embodies the latter’s views. Vas. (18. 13-15) quotes three Slokas sung by Yama, one of which (14) is the same as Manu 4. 80 and another (15) is very similar to Manu 4. 81. Another Sloka of Yama is quoted by Vas. ( 19. 48 ) which is almost the same as Manu 5. 93. From these facts and others Bthler draws the conclusion (S. B. E. vol. XIV, p. XX) that these verses were taken from the Manavadharmasttra, which occupied the same position in Vasistha’s day as the Manusmrti does at present. I demur to this conclusion, which will be discussed later on in detail ( under Manusmirti ). Vas. (14. 30-32) quotes slokas of Prajapati, the first of which mentions Yama by name. Vas. 14. 16-19 and 24-27 are quoted as Slokas of Prajapati, three of which (14. 16, 18 and 24) are practically the same as Manu. 4. 248, 249 and 5.127. Vas. 14. 19 contains a pada which occurs in Manu 4. 212. It is remarkable that the Vas. Dh. S. cites Vasistha himself with great reverence (as bhagavan ) in 2. 50 ( about the rate of interest ), 24. 5 (about Krechra penance ), 30.11. In numerous places the Vas. Dh. S. either refers to Manu by name or quotes the views of Manu (under the form ‘iti Manavam’ ) or a Sloka of Manu (with the words ‘Manavarh lokam ). All these passages have an important bearing on the age of the Manusmrti and on the supposed existence of a Manavadharma- sitra. They therefore deserve to be carefully examined. Vas. I. 17 is in prose (about local, family or caste usages ) and summarises the views of Manu. The absence of the word ‘iti’ before ‘abravin’ Manuh’ and the form of the sutra itself clearly establishes that Vas. is not directly quoting a sitra of Manu. That stra is only a summary of our Manul. 118. Vas. 3. 2 (which is preceded by the words ‘Manavath slokam’ ) is Manu II. 168. And so are Vas. 13. 16, 20. 18, which are Manu 4.117 and 11.151 (with very slight variations). That the Jatter existed in Vasistha’s text is vouched for by Apararka (p. 1075). Vas. 4. 5 isin prose and cites the view of Manu that animals may be sacrificed only for worshipping atid honouring the 86 History of Dharmatistra ` 0147065, deities and guests *°5. There is hardly anything to show that it is a direct quotation from Manu and not asummary of Manu’s views. The sitra briefly summarises the views that we find expressed in our Manu 5. 22, 32, 41 and 42 (the words of 42 ‘esvarthesu pasurh hirhsan’ are interesting and bear a close resem- blance to ‘pagum hithsyad’ in Vas.). That sitra is followed by a verse which is the same as Manu 5. 41. It is to be noted that the same verse occurs in the dharmasttra of Visnu (51. 64 ) which reads ‘nanyatreti katharhcana’ for ‘ nanyathetyabravin Manuh’. This change appears to have been purposely made to keep up the impression that the Visnu-Dh. S. emanated from Visnu himself and so could not have borrowed from a human author. Vas. 4. 7 1s very similar to Manu 5. 48. Buhler (ऽ, B. E. Vol. 25, p. xxx1) is wrong in taking Vas. 4. 8 as a quotation from the Manavadharma- 50४, There is nothing to show that it is so taken. It is more probably a quotation from or a summary of a Brahmana_ passage ( compare a quotation in Apararka on Yaj. 1. 109, which is similar ). Vide note 46. Vas. 23.43 (where Manu is referred to as prescribing an easy penance called Sigukrechra for children and old men) corresponds more or less with Manu 11. 211 and 219 and Vas. 26. 8 has evidently Manu 11. 260 in view. There are only two places in Vasistha where the name of Manu occurs for which it is not possible to point out a corresponding verse in the Manusmrti. They are Vas. 12. 16 and 19 37. The latter is cited as a Manavasloka and is in the Upajati metre.*°° Because this is not found in our Manu, Bihler and other Western scholars seem to think that the verse is taken from the Manava- dharmasitra which once existed in mixed prose and verse and is now lost. But as will be shown elsewhere this hypothesis is based, to say the least, on very slender foundations. Besides these two that are not found in our Manu, there are about forty verses that are common to the Vas. Dh. ऽ. and the Manusmrti and about a dozen verses which, though not strictly identical, are more or less similar. There are several prose अऽ of Vas. which correspond to the “08 िृदिरिषपूनासामेष प ERA more । परि ५.४; रि ५३॥ जपि मान वा राजन्याय बाम्यागताय मद्रक्षण वा महाज वा पचेदेवमस्मा अतिर्थ्यं a | | 106 शुके चापि eae ae भिन्का्षौपणमसि्ति शुल्के म॒शिल्पवृत्ती न शिशो न दूते । न मेक्षलब्धे न हृतावशेषे न MA न प्रवजिते न यज्ञे ॥. The बि. र, CB 005) says "वसिष्ठः शुल्के चापि मानय श्छोकमुदाहरति न भिन्नम्‌! &e- 9, Vasietha-dharmasittra $7 verses of Manu almost word for word.1°97 The hypothesis that commends itself to me is that Vas. contains borrowings from the Manusmrti or its purer ancient original in verse. In the words ‘6ramanakenagnimadhaya’ ( Vas. 9. 10 ), the ऽप of Vikhanas seems to be referred to. Gautama (Dh. S. 3. 26) contains the same words. Vasistha’s 22nd chap. is the same as Gautama’s 1970 and Baudhayana’s tenth in the 3rd prasna and seems to have been borrowed from Gautama. Vasistha refers to the views of others in the words ‘eke’ or ‘anye’ ( Vas, 1.12, 13,253 4. 10; 17. 66; 20. 2). Dr. Jolly (ऽ. 8.8. vol. VII, p. xvi) thinks that Vas. 28. 10-15 and 18-22 are borrowed from the Visnudharma- satra chap. LVI and LXXXVII for its original the Kathakadharma- satra. Dr. Jolly is not right with regard to both the places. Buhler has already pointed out his mistake as to the second passage (S. B. E. vol. XIV p. XXII). The verses in Vas. 28. 10-15 occur in several smrtis (vide Sankhasmrti, roth chap. in Jivananda’s ed. part II. pp. 356-357 forthe same verses ). Besides Vas. 28.11 occurs in Baud. Dh. S. IV. 3.7. Hence it is hardly proper for any scholar to make the dogmatic assertion that one particular smrti must have borrowed from any other. The rather very corrupt passage in Wasistha ( 16. 21-23"% ) very closely resembles a passage of Sankha, which is cited by Visvarapa on Yaj. I. 305 and by the Krtya-kalpataru (I. O. Cat. Ms. No. 852, folio 8a ). Buhler is of opinion that the home of the school to whiéh the Vas. Dh. S. belonged lay to the north of the Narmada and the 107 afer 7. 3. ‹ तेषां वेदमधीत्य वेदो वेदान्वाविशीर्णब्मचयों य॑मिष्छेत्तमावसेत्‌ । " compare मनु 3.2 ; वसिष्ठ 15. 61 ‹ त॒णभ्रम्यग्भयुद्कवाक्सुन॒तानसुयाः सतां गृहे ea taal Sara | 9 ; compare मन 3.101; ate 16.30 ¢ aint साक्षिणः क्षियः कुर्थाद्‌ द्विजानां सदृशा द्विजाः शूद्राणां सन्तः शद्राश्चान्त्यानामन्त्ययोनयः compare with मनु 8. 68 ‹ श्वीणां साक्ष्यं fea: कुयुर्िजानां सदृशा een: । शूद्राश्च सम्तः शुद्राणामन्त्यानामन्त्ययोनयः ॥ *. 108 The printed Vas. reads ' वेधसो वा राजा श्रेयान्‌ गुधपरिवारं स्यात्‌ | गृध्परिवारं बा रजा RANT MITRAL स्यान्न गधो गृधपरिवारं स्यात्‌ * . This hardly makes any sense. The कृत्यकर्पतङ्‌ Presents 8 good reading ( from शङ्खाणिशषित ) ‘a megan: स्यात्‌ । कामे गुधो राजा भयन्‌ इंसपरिवार; । परिवारा दोषाः भाङ्ुभेवन्ति । Ase विनाशाथ । ". H. ज 8. $8 History of Dharmatastra Vindhya (S. B. E. vol. XIV p. XVI). When it is extremely. pro- blematical whether the Vas. Dh. S. was the product of a school, it is idle to speculate as to the home of the Vas. Dh. ऽ. Buihler’s is no more than a mere conjecture and it is better to admit that we know nothing positive at present on thé point. The earliest work to refer to Vasistha as an authority on dharma is our Manu (8. 140 ), saying that Vas. allowed 1/80th of the prin- cipal as interest per month. This appears to refer to the rule in Vas. 2.50. Wesaw above that Vas. borrows from the Manusmrti, which in its turn quotesa rule of Vasistha. The explanation of this is twofold. Both the Manusmrti and Vas. have received later additions and further it is possible that the present Vas. Dh. S. 15 the work of some one who had received the teachings of Vas. through a succession of teachers and disciples. Yaj. mentions (1. 4 ) Vasistha as a writer on dharma. The Tantravartika as seen above ( note 55 ) remarks that the Vas. Dh. S. was studied by Rgvedins. The same work when speaking of works on dharma puts Manu, Gautama and Vasistha in the forefront.'°%%a Viéva- rapa, Medhatithi and other early commentators largely quote from Vas. The verse ‘agnerapatyam’ ( Vas. 28. 16) occurs in the Ragirh copperplate of Tivaradeva of the last quarter of the 8th century (Fleet’s Gupta Inscriptions No. 81). Therefore the existence of any k of Vasistha on dharma at least in the first centuries of the Ch era is vouched for with certainty and the authenticity of its text is supported by eminent writers from the 7th century down- wards. Apararka quotes passages from the Bhavisyapurana which have in view the present text of Vas.'°9 Some of the views held by Vasistha are very ancient. For example, he speaks of the twelve secondary sons, assigns a very inferior position to the Dattaka son (17th chapter ), allows niyoga (17. 56 ff ) and the remarriage of child widows (17. 74); like Apastamba he mentions only six 108 ‘sey मनुगोतमवसिष्ठादिपणीताः समानेष्वर्थैष धर्मसंहिता वतन्ते । तेनाविगाना्ताभ्य एवे श्रतयः स्वनुमानाः। न च व्याकरणस्य ताभिः समानार्थत्वम्‌ aorta on जेमिनि I. 3. 24. 109 “वसिष्ठेन समाख्यातं बह्हत्याग्यपोहरनम्‌ | AUT दवादशरात्रम॒पवसेत्‌ ॥* अर्ष- Te p. 1067 (thia is वसिष्ठ 23. 38); (वसिष्ठेन तथोक्तं वै प्रायगतं सुराधिप । कामतो ARITA तु न सुरायाः STP अपरा ४, 1075 ( this ०. efyg 90. 19). 9. Vasietha-dharmastira 89 forms of marriage ( 1. 28-29 ), brahma, daiva, arsa, gandharva, ksdtra and manusa. In some respects his views are different from those of early writers like Gautama and Baudhayana. He prohibits the marriage of a Brahmana with a Sidra woman (I. 25-26). Vide Baud. Dh. S. I. 8. 2 for the contrary view.’ He नम borates rules of adoption (15th chapter ) which are not found in Gaut. or Baud. or Apastamba. He speaks of documents as one of the three means of proof (Vas. 16. 10-15 ), while Gautama, Apa- stamba and Baudhayana are silent on the point, though in Gautama (13. 4.) there appears to be a reference to documents. Taking all these things into consideration it may be said that Vasistha is later than Gautama, Apastamba and Baudhayana, but much earlier than the beginnings of the Christian era and may tentatively be assigned to the period between 300-100 B. C. It has been asserted by an eminent authority (Cambridge History of India vol. I, p. 249) that Vasistha 18. 4 ( vaiSyena brihmanyam-utpanno Ramako bhavatityahuh ) probably contains a reference to the Romans. This assumptiou is gratuitous and does not deserve serious consider- ation. The reading Romaka ( on which the learned writer relies ) is not supported by the best mss. and it is most hazardous to seize with avidity on a variant reading and to build an imposing structure of chronology thereon. The offspring of a Vaisya male from a Brahmana woman is designated Ramaka by Vasistha, while Gautama calls him दप (4.15) and Baud. Dh. 9. (I. 9.7) calls such an offspring Vaidehaka ; so Ramaka has as much to do with the Romans as with Rameses. In the nibandhas there are several quotations ascribed to Vasistha which are not found in the printed Dharmasttra. For example, Haradatta on Gaut. ( 22. 18 ) quotes a verse in the Upajati metre which is not found in the present text १४०, So early a writer as Visvardpa cites ( on Yaj. I. 19 ) the views. of a writer called Vrddha-Vasistha. The Mit. on Y4j. ( II. 91) quotés the definition of a jayapatra ( judgment ) from Vyddha-Vasigtha and on III. 20 quotes him about impurity on miscarriage. The Smyticandrika quotes about 20 verses from Vrddha-Vasistha on abnika and Sraddha ; Bhattoji in his gloss on the Caturvirhsatiqgatg., SL NOTTS. M10 The verse ls न्‌ नालिदेरेग न शःणयलनं TT मंजेन न वभरङ्कलेः | एतेक ऋ नं निचम्धनीया बद्धननि्ठेत्‌ परशं प्रगृह्य ॥ The same verse is quoted च्छि tp Prarerer ( ०० याज्ञ, ILI. 264) without the author's name. a History of Dharmatistra ( p. 12 ) seems to quote a prose passage fron Vrddha-Vasisthe. From the above it follows that Vrddha-Vasistha was an early compilation and dealt with almost all such topics ( including Vyavahara ) as are dealt with by Yaj. The Mit. also quotes a Brhad- Vasistha. The Smrticandrika (III. p. 300 ) quotes a few verses from a Jyotir-Vasistha. The I. 0. catalogue ( No. 1339 p. 392 ) speaks of a Vasistha-smrti in ten adhyayas about the religious observances and duties enjoined on devotees of Visnu. That Yajfiasvamin wrote a commentary on the Vas. Dh. $. follows from Govindasvamin’s comment on Baud. Dh. S. (II. 2. 51), where he quotes Vas. 21. 13 and Yajiiasvamin’s comment thereon. 10. Visnudharmasutra. The Visnudharmasttra has been printed several times in India, viz. by Jivananda in his Dharmaégastrasangraha ( 1876 part 1 pp. 70- 176 ), by the Bengal Asiatic Society (1881, ed. by Dr. Jolly with extracts from the commentary Vaijayanti), by M. N. Dutt ( Dharma- astra texts, vol. II. pp. 541-666, Calcutta, 1909 ) and translated by Dr. Jolly (in the ऽ. B. E. vol. VII with an Introduction), In the present work Dr. Jolly’s edition has been used. The stra contains one hundred chapters. ‘Though the number of chapters 15 so large, the siitra is not very extensive. There are several chapters such as 40, 42 and 76 that contain only one satra and one verse. The first chapter and the last two are entirely in verse; the remaining chapters are in mixed prose and verse, the versified portion being generally at the end of each chapter. As pointed out by the Vaijayanti the sitra is in close relation to one of the oldest schools of the Yajurveda, viz. Katha. It also stands in a peculiar relation to the extant Manusmrti. According to the Caranavyaha, Katha and Carayaniya are two of the twelve sub-divisions of Caraka-sakha of the Yajurveda. Dr, Jolly (9, 8. E. vol. VII p. XII) says that the Visnudharmasatra has four chapters ( 21, 67, 73 and 86) in common with the Kathak-grhya ( except the final parts in 21, 67, 86 ) and that both drew from a common source. Bihler points out ( West and Bihler’s digest, 3rd ed. p. 35 ) that the Kathakagrhya found in Kashmir agrees closely with the Dharmasutra of Visnu and the mantras in the latter agree with the Kathaka recension of the Yajurveda. But the Visnudharma- siitra is not the work of the same author that composed the Kathaka Srauta or Grhya sutras, nor does it appear that it formed part of the 10: Visnudharmadifrs: | Kathaka Kalpa, Dr. Jolly (2. ४. 3. 9.7) says thar Govindaraja € 12th century ) in his Smrtimaiijari cites a passage in prose from 2 Kathasatrakrt on the penance for Brahmana murder which is wanting in our Visnusmyti ( vide ऽ. B. E. Vol. 25, p. xxr n for the passage ). The contents of the Visnu-dharma-sitra are :-r. The earth being lifted out of the surging ocean by the great Boar, went to Ka$yapa to inquire as to who would support her thereafter, and was sent by him to Visnu who told her that those who would follow the duties of vargas and asramas would be her support, whereupon the earth pressed the great God to impart to her their duties; 2. the four varnas and their dharmas ; 3. the duties of kings ( rajadharmah ); 4. the Karsapana and smaller measures; 5. punishments for various offences ; 6. debtors and creditors, rates of interest, sureties; 7. three kinds of documents; 8. witnesses ; 9. general rules about ordeals ; 10-14. ordeals of balance, fire, water, poison and holy water ( koSa ) ; 15. the twelve kinds of sons, exclusion from inheritance, eulogy of sons; 16. offspring of mixed marriages, aud mixed castes ; 17. partition, joint family and rules of inheritance to one dying’ son- less, re-union, stridhana ; 18. partition among sons of a man from wives of different castes ; 19. carrying the dead body for cremation, impurity on death, praise of Brahmanas; 20. the duration of the four Yugas, Manvantara, Kalpa, Mahakalpa, passages inculcating that one should not grieve too much for the departed; 21. the rites for the dead after period of mourning, monthly Sraddha, sapindikarana ; 22. periods of impurity on death for sapindas, rules of conduct in mourning, impurity on birth, and rules about impurity on touching various persons and objects ; 23. purification of one’s body and of various substances ; 24. marriage, forms of marriage, inter-marriages, guardians for marriage ; 25. the dharmas of women ; 26. precedence among wives of different castes; 27. the sathskdras, garbhadhana and others; 28. the rules for brabmacarins ; 29. eulogy of acarya ; 30. time for the starting of Vedic study and holidays ; 31. father, mother and acarya deserve the highest reverence ; 32. other persons deserv- ing of respect ; 33. the three sources of sin, viz. passion, anger, greed; 34. kinds of atipatakas, deadliest sins; 35. five mahapdtakas; 36. anupdatakas, that are as deadly as the mahapatakas ; 37. numerous upapatakas ; 38-42. other lesser sins ; 43. the twenty one hells and the duration of hell torments for various sinners; 44. the various low births to which sinners are consigned for various sins ; 45. the 6s Eidory of Dharmatistra various diseases suffered by sinners and the low pursuits they have to follow by way of retribution ; 46-48. various kinds of krechras ( penances ), santapana, candrayana, prasrtiyavaka ; 49. actions prescribed for a devotee of Vasudeva and the rewards thereof; 50. prayascitta for killing a brahmana and other human beings, for killing cows and other animals; 51-53. prayagcittas for drinking wine and other forbidden substances, for theft of gold and other articles, for incest and sexual intercourse of other kinds ; 54. prayascittas for miscellaneous acts ; 55. secret penances ; 56. holy hymns like Aghamarsana that purge sin ; 57. whose society should be avoided, Vratyas, unrepentant sinners, avoiding gifts; 58. the pure, variegated (mixed) and dark kinds of wealth ; 59. The duties of house-holders, pakayajiias, the five daily mahdayajnas, honouring guests; 60. the daily conduct of a householder and good breeding ; 61-62. rules about brushing the teeth, dcamana; 63. means of livelihood for a house- holder, rules for guidance, good and evil omens on starting on jour- ney, rule of the road; 64. bathing and tarpana of gods and Manes; 65-67. worship of Vasudeva; flowers and other materials of worship, offering of food to deities and pizdas to ancestors and giving food to guests ; 68. rules about time and manner of taking food; 69-70. sexual intercourse with wife and about sleep; 71. general rules of conduct for a sndtaka; 72. value of self-restraint; 73-86. sraddhas, the procedure of 5244125, astaka Sraddha, the ancestors to whom graddha is to be offered, times of Sraddha, fruits of Sraddha on the several week days and the 27 naksatras and the lithis, materials for graddha, brahmanas unfit to be invited at Sraddha, brahmanas who are pankti- pavana ; countries unfit for sraddha, tirthas, letting loose of a bull; 87-88. gifts of antelope skin, or a cow; 89. kartika snana ; 90. eulogy of gifts of various sorts ; 91-93. works of public utility such as wells, lakes, planting gardens, embankments, gifts of food, flowers &c. $ difference in merit according to the recipient ; 94-95. rules about forest hermit ( vanaprastha ); 96-97. about sarknyasa, anatomy of the bones, muscles, veins, arteries &c. ; concentration in various ways 98-99. praise of Vasudeva by the Earth and of Laksmi; 100. rewards of studying this Dharmasastra. The Visnudharma-satra somewhat resembles the Dharma-satra of Vasistha. Like the latter it is full of verses. But one feature which is peculiar to the Visnu-dharmasiatra is that it professes to be a revelation by the supreme Being. None of the other dharma- 10. Visnudharmastiva | 89 sOtras so far described assumes this role. The style of the Visnu- dharmasitra is easy and somewhat diffuse. It presents hardly any ungrammatical forms. The printed text is corrupt only in a few cases ; the verses occur generally at the end of chapters. Sometimes the number of verses in a chapter is very large e.g, in chapter 20 there are 21 siitras and 32 verses, in chapter 23 there are 24 verses, in chap. 43 there are 14, in chap. 51 there are are 20 verses. Some of the verses are in the classical Indravajra (19. 23-24 ) and the Upajati metres ( 23.61 and 59. 30) and a few are Tristubhs ( 29. 9-10, 30. 47, 72. 77 ). The three Tristubhs ( 29. 9-10, 30. 41 ) are three out of the four verses of the Vidy4-stkta occurring in the Nirukta (1. 4). There is one verse (72. 6) which has eleven letters in the first pada and twelve in the remaining three. In determining theage of the Visnudharmasatra one is confronted with a difficult problem. Some of the chapters undoubtedly contain material which is comparatively old and on a level with the ancient Dharmasttras of Gautama and Apastamba. Such are the chapters about rajadharma and punishments (3 and 5 ), the rules about twelve sons and the mixed castes ( 15-16 ), funeral rites and mourn- ing ( 21 and 22 ). But there are very large portions of the work that bear a clear impress of a later date. The Visnudharmasitra and the Manusmrti have at least 160 identical verses. But this is not 211. There are hundreds of satras which are merely the prose equi- valents of verses from the Manusmrti. For example, Visnu 2. 3 and Manu 2. 16, Visnu 3. 4 and 6 and Manu 7. 69-70, Visnu 3. 7~r0 and Manu 7.115, Visnu 3. 11-15 and Manu 7. 116-117, Visnu 4. 1-13 and Manu 8. 132-137, Visnu 5. 4-7, and Manu 9. 237, Visnu 20. 1-21, and Manu I. 67-73, Visnu $. 7-10 and Manu 4. 209-212, Visnu 59. 21-25 and Manu 3. 70, Visnu 62. 224 and Manu 2. 59, Visnu 71. 48-52 and Manu 4. 80, and Visnu 96. 14-17 and Manu 6. 46 agree almost word for word. ‘The verses that are identical in both are found in all the chapters of the Manusmrti from the second to the last, the largest number ( about 47 ) occurring in the sth and chap- ters eleven, two, and three respectively contributing 25, 24, and 19 verses. ‘Therefore the question whether the extant Visnudharma- ‘sutra borrows from Manu or vice versa or whether both borrow from a common original assumes very great importance. As the corres- pondence extends over several hundred verses of the Manusmrti, the last hypathesis of borrowing from.a common original does + History of Dharmasistra not recommend itself to me. No such common source is known to have existed and to say that there were hundreds of floating popular verses whose authorship was unknown and which were drawn upon by both works appears to me to be an extremely gratu- {tous and unsatisfactory assumption. In my opinion it is the extant Visnudharmasitra that borrowed the verses ad hoc or adapted them from the Manusmrti. There are several lines of reasoning that strengthen this hypothesis. There are some verses that are iden- tical in both, in which the name of Manu occurs, which the Visnu- dharmasatra omits by making slight verbal changes. For example, Visnu 23. 50 substitutes ‘tat parikirtitam’ for ‘Manur-abravit’ in Manu 5.131 and Visnu 51. 64 reads ‘ndnyatreti katharhcana” for Manu 5. 41 ‘ nanyatretyabravin-Manuh’ (this last occurs in Vas. 4.6). The reason for these changesisobvious. The Visnu-dharma- stra professes to be a direct revelation from Visnu and it is in keep- ing with this assumed role that notone human author is mentioned by name in the satra. Therefore where the name of Manu occurred in any verse, it was purposely omitted. Another reason why the sitra must be presumed to be the borrower is the character of the extant work itself. It isa kind of hotchpotch and contains verses that are identical with those of other works. For example, several verses of the Bhagavatgita occur in the Visnudharmasiatra. Visnu 20, 48-49 and 51-52 are the same 25 Gita 2. 13. 23, 24, 28 ; Visnu 72.7 and Gita 13. 14-18 are almost identical. Visnu 96. 97 and the first half of 98 are the same as Gita 13. 1-2, except that in keeping with its character of a revelation to the Earth, the Visnudharmasutra substitutes ‘ vasudhe’ for ‘ kaunteya’ and ‘ bhavini’ for ‘ bharata. ’ Several verses of the YAjnavalkya-smrti are identical with those of the Visnudharmasttra. For example, Visnu 6. 41 and Yaj. 2. 53, Visnu 8. 38 and Yaj. II. 79, Visnu 9. 33 and Yaj. 2. 97, Visnu 17. 17 and Yaj. 2. 138, Visnu 17. 23 (first half) and Yaj. 2. 210 ( latter half), Visnu 62. 9 and ४}. 1. 21, Vi. 63. 51 and Yaj. 1. 117 are iden- tical. Besides these there are hundreds of prose sitras that are identical with passages of Yajiavalkya. For example, Vi. 3. 72-74= ४2}. II. 1-4 ; Vi. 3. 82 = Yaj. 1. 318-320 ( rules about land grants ) ; Vi. $. 65-69 = Yj. II. 217-220, Vi. $. 73 = Yaj. II. 221 ; Vi. 45. 3- 12 = Yaj. 3. 209-211 ( about diseases suffered by sinners ) ; Vi. 60. 24 = Yaj. 1.17; Vi. 96. 55-79 = Yaj. 3. 84-90 (about 360 bonesof the body ) ; Vi. 96. 80-88 = ४३]. 3. 100-102 ( about the number of arteries, veins, muscles etc.); Vi. 96. 89-92 = Yaj. 3.93-39,- Dr. Jolly 10. ` Vienudharmastitra 65 thinks that Yajiivalkya borrows from Visnu the whole of the anato- mical section (vide ऽ. B. E. vol. VII, p. XX). With great respect I differ from this opinion. There is nothing to show that the anato- mical details were first given to the world by Visnu. They must have first been embodied in works on medicine such as those of Caraka and अप्पा" and were probably copied by Dharmasutra writers. But if there is any borrowing between Visnu and Yajfia- valkya I think from the character of the Visnudharmasutra that it is the sitra that must be regarded as borrowing from YaAjfavalkya. There are several matters in the extant Visnudharmasatra which are wanting in Yajnavalkya and which induce one to place the extant stra later than Yajiavalkya, viz. the name ‘ Jaiva’ for Thursday Vi. 78. 5), the long list of tirthas ( Vi. chap. 85 ) which include riparvata and the five rivers of the south cailed southern Pajicanada, the importance of the conjunction of the moon and Jupiter on 2 full moon day ( Vi. 49. 9-10 ), the vague definition of Aryavarta'"? (Vi. 84. 4). The verse in Visnu 54. 33 ( about half prayascitta for boys and old men ) is ascribed to Angiras by the Mitaksara (on Yaj. TI. 243 ). Therefore the most probable conclusion is that the extant Visnu- dharmasutra borrows from the Manusmyti, Yajfiavalkya and other authors. It would be too much to assume that the Manusmrti, the Bhagavatgita and Yajnavalkya borrow from such a comparatively unimportant work as the Visnudharmasutra. The above conclusion is further strengthened by certain other con- siderations. The Manusmyti has been quoted with utmost reverence by a host of writers from the fifth century downwards, such as Sabara, Kumirila and Sankaracarya. Yajiiavalkya was commented upon by Visvart pa in the first half of the 9th century. Vigvarapa in his commen- tary quotes scores of sitras from Gautama, Apastamba, Baudhayana, Vasistha, Sankha and Harita. Butit is significant that Visvarapa in his commentary on Yajiiavalkya does not quote even a single satra of Visnu by name. It is true that Visvarapa (on रक. III. 66) says that 113 Vide चरक, AIST chap. 7 and सुश्रुत, शारीरस्थान्‌ Chap. 5; in the STF हृद्य of वाग्भट, शारीर chap. 3, we find 360 bones and 700 musoles. 419 चजातुर्ण्यव्यवस्थानं यस्िन्देशे न वियते । स म्टेष्छदेशो विज्ञेय आर्यावर्तरततः परः ॥ It is to be noted that र ह), (1. 3) lays down dharmas for the country in which the black deer moves about, following Baud. I. I. 38 and Vas. 1. 13. ४, ०३, 66 History of Dharmatietra the four forms of asceticism ( parivrajya ) should be understoéd from other smrtis like those of Visnu'*3. This probably refers to chap. 97 of the extant Visnudharmasatra. Medhatithi (on Manu 3. 248 ) quotes Visnu ( 27. 12 ) andon Manu 9. 76 quotes a satra of Visnu which I could not trace in the printed Visnu.''** The Mitaksdra mentions Visnu about thirty times. The quotations are taken from chapters 19, 21, 22, 35-42, 50, §1, §2, 75 and 79 of the Visnu-- dharmasitra, 18 satras of chap. 22 ( on aSauca and kindred topics ) being quoted on ४३. III. 23, 24, 27, 29-30. Butit isa remarkable fact that notone of the verses in the extant Visnudharmasttra is cited as Visnu’s in the Mitaksara. The only exception is a verse cited as Visnu’s on ४३}. III. 265, which has the same purport as Visnu 52. 14 (a verse ) and the first pada of which is identical with that of the verse in the Visnudharmasttra.''' A few verses that are quoted as Visnu’s in the Mitaksara could not be traced in the extant dharmasitra.'"® It is not unlikely that the sitra first contained mostly prose 095 based on Manu and the Kathakagrhya and verses were tacked on later. Among later writers of nibandhas Apararka quotes Visnu most profusely and the Smpticandrika also quotes Vigsnu about 225 times. 113 स्त्यन्तरेभ्यश्च विष्ण्वादिभ्यो विशेषतश्चतुर्विधः पाखिज्यपरकारमेदोभ्यपगन्त्यः | 114 The quotation is ‘ अष्टौ विप्रसूताः षट्‌ राजन्याश्चतुरो वेश्या द्विगुणं प्रसूतेति न AIA कालनियमः स्वात्संवत्सरमित्येके ”, compare for a somewhat similar rule Vas. 17. 78 115 यथाह विष्णुः । दत्वेवापहूतं द्र्य स्वामिने वरतमाचरेदिति । while विष्णुधमंचुत्र reads ‘ दुत्तवेवापहृतं द्रभ्यं धनिकस्याप्युपायतः | Ta ततः कुयौत्कल्मषस्यप- नुत्तये ॥ 116 The verse are: ओष्ठौ विलोमो वासो विपरिधाय च | १०४९० on Yaj, I. 195; अपरशस्तास्तु कानीनगृढोत्यननसद्येढजाः | पोनमैवश्च नेवेते पिण्डरिक्थांशभागिनः ॥ quoted on Yaj. I. 138; अपुन्रपोत्रसन्ताने द्रा धनमा्रयुः | Tat तु स्वधाकारे पौन्ना दोदि्रिका भता ॥ OD ४ छ}. 1. 135 ; आङृष्टस्ताडितो वापि धनेवा विप्रयोजितः UNE त्यजेत्पाणांस्तमाहुमेह्यषातकम्‌ ॥ ज्ञातिमित्रकलत्रा्थं सृह्सन्नाथमेव च । यमुद्दिश्य त्यजेत्‌... घातकम्‌ ॥ उद्धिश्य कुपितो हत्वा तोषितः श्रावयेत्‌ पुनः | तस्मिन्‌ मते न दोषोस्ति TASS AM रते ॥ om ? ४). 777. 227 ; श्ीणाम्ं प्रदातव्यं द्धन रोगिणां तथा । पादो बलिषु दातभ्यः सर्वपापेष्वयं (A: ॥ on ४81. IIL 243: TEAST TATE मासमेकं पलत्रयम्‌ । प्यहं स्यात्यराको वा चान्द्रायणमथापि वा ॥ bn Yj. 1. 268 10. Vienudharmasitra 67 Many of the verses found in Vi. are quoted by Apararka 25 Visnu's, 6.8. Vi, 84. 4 on Yaj. 1. 2; 68. 46-47 on Yj. 1, 106 ; 67. 33 on Yaj. 1. 107 ; $. 183 on Yaj. 2. 60; 0. 9710) Yaj. 2.102. But there are numerous verses quoted as Visnu’s by Apararka which are not found in the sutra, €, g. on Yaj. 1, 21, 53, 89, 100. Apararka quotes almost whole chapters of Visnu, e. g. Vi. 68 on ४2}. 1. 106 and 90 on Yaj. I. 208, 70 on Yaj. 1.114. It is to be noted that Vi. 70. 17 ( a verse ) is quoted by Apararka asa prose sitra(on!.114 ) with slight verbal changes. All these facts make one feel naturally scep- tical about the authenticity of most of the verses in the extant Visnu- dharmasatra. They probably formed no part of the sutra at the time when the Mitaksara was composed. Atall events it cannot be gainsaid that the verses are a very late part of the sitra. ` The Visnudhamasitra contains quotations from all the Vedic samhitas and from the Aitareya-brahmana ( as in Vi. 15. 45 ). It mentions the Vedarigas very frequently (30. 3 and 38, 28. 35, 83. 6), it speaks of Vyakarana (83.7), of itihdsa (3. 70, 30. 38, 83. 7), of Dharmaégastras ( 3. 70, 30. 38, 73. 16, 83. 8), of Purana ( 3. 70, 30. 38 &c.). About the close correspondence between Baud. III. 6 and Visnu. 48 and between Vas. 28. ro-15 and 18-22 and Visnu 56 and 87 vide remarks made above pp. 23, 57. The satra quotes several verses (called gathas) and says they were sung by pitrs; vide 78. 52-53, 80. 14, 83. 21, 85. 65-67. They bear close resemblance to the gathas sung by the pitrs quoted in the Anugdsana-parva 88. 11-15 and a half verse ‘estavya bahavah putra yadyekopi Gayarh vrajet’ is the same in Vi. 85. 67 and Anu. 88. 14. The Visnusmrti enumerates twenty one hells (43. 1-22), which are almost the same as Yajiiavalkya’s (3. 222-224). It mentions the names of the seven days of the week (78. 1-7), Thurs- day being called Jaiva, while Yajiavalkya mentions only the seven planets ( with Rahu and Ketu ) in the same order (1. 296). Ie recommends the practice of sati (25. 14), speaks of pustakas (18. 44, 23. §6 ), a word which is not used by the other dharmasttras so far described. It gives a long list of good and evil omens at the time of starting on a journey ( 63. 33-39 ). Among evil omens it includes the sight of yellow-robed ascetics (i. €, Buddhists probably) and Kapalikas ( 63. 36 ). It prohibits speech with Mlecchas, Antyajas (71. 59 ). and journeys to Mleccha countries (84.2). It centains special directions about the worship of Vasudeva in chap. 49 88 History of Dharmaftstra and speaks of Svetadvipa as the reward of devotion to Vasudeva ( 49. 4). Here and there, there are eulogies of Vasudeva (1. 50-57, 65.1, 97. 10, 98 which gives one hundred names of Visnu ). It speaks of the four vyahas of Vasudeva ( 67. 2) and of the Varaha incarnation. It gives a vague location of Aryavarta as a country where the four varnas exist ( 84. 4 ). It enumerates numerous sacred places ( 85. 1252), among which Sriparvata, Saptarsa ( modern Satara? ), Godavari and southern Paficanada deserve to be specially noted. Though it does not specifically enumerate the eighteen titles of law just as Yajiiavalkya does not, yet it contains rules (in chapters 5-6 ) on almost all of them. As Yajfiavalkya enumerates Visnu among the propounders of dharmasastras, it follows that a work of Visnu existed in comparati- vely early times. What matters that work embraced it is difficult to say. It probably contained the topics found in the works of Gautama, Apastamba and others. It may have included portions borrowed from the Kathakagrhya. When Dr. Jolly says that certain chapters of Visnu agree closely with the Kathakagrhya, all that is meant is that some of the sutras of Visnu are the same or almost the same as those of the Kathakagrhya (e. g. compare Visnu 21, 73 and 86 with Kathakagrhya V. 12, V. 9, and V. 3 respectively ). But in all these places Visnu contains more details than the Kathakagrhya. It may however be noted that in a few cases the views of the Kathakagrhya differ from those of Visnu. For example, Visnu ( 30.1) speaks of Vedic studies for 444 months only in the year when once they are started on the full-moon day of Sravana or Bhadrapada, while the Kathakagrhya (I. 9. 10 ) gives three alternatives, viz. 444, ऽ or 514 months ; Visnu prescribes that the proper year for the upanayana of a ksatriya is the 11th from conception (27. 16), while the Kathaka prescribes the 9th, without specifying whether it is from conception or birth (IV. 1. 2); Visnu enumerates eight forms of marriage (24. 18 ), while the Kathaka (II. 3 and 4) speaks of only two, Brahma and Asura, and is silent about the rest; Vigsnu (46. 19-20 ) defines Santapana and Mahasantapana differently from the Kathaka (I. 7. 3-4 ), but agrees with Yajiiavalkya ( III, 315—316 ). Here the recent Lahore edition of the Kathakagrhya by Dr. Caland has been used. As it used Kathaka mantras and borrowed from the Kathakagrhya, the dharmasatra may have been a text-book of the Kathaka school and probably originated in Kashmir and Punjab which is the - home 10. Vignudharmasitra 89 of the Kathas. The date of the older portion of Visnu may be placed between 300 B.C. to100 B.C. But this is no more than a mere conjecture. It is to be noted that Kumirila does not mention the _Misnudharmasitra among the satras studied by particular schools. “Then several centuries later on the whole of the ऽप्य was recast from the Vaisnavite point of view and received large additions both in prose and verse. When these additions were made we have no exact means of determining. It is probable that they were not made very long before Visvarapa. Atall events the additions were made long after the Yajiiavalkyasmrti and after the 3rd century. The mention of the week days makes the sitra compara- tively a late work. The earliest epigraphic mention of a week day is in the Eran inscription of 484 A. D. (vide Fleet’s Gupta inscriptions pp. 88-89 ) and Varahamihira ( 6th century ) knew the week days well. The Brahmapurana (28. 55) mentions Sunday and the Padmapurana mentions Thursday (Brahmakhanda chap. 11. 34). The Sarya-siddhanta ( XII. 6 and 78) speaks of the lords of days. Thus although the extant Visnu-dharmasitra is a late recast, it contains a few doctrines that were held in ancient times. For example it allows a Brahmana to marry a girl of anyone of the four castes (24. 7 ) and does not inveigh against mtyoga as Manu does, A few of the sittras agree closely with Narada. Vide Vi. 7. 10- 11 and Narada ( Rnadana verses 136-137 ) The Mitaksara quotes allthe prose passages of chapters 35-42 and ascribes them to Brhadvisnu ( on Yaj. 3. 242). Similarly on Yaj. 3. 261 it ascribes Vi. 35. 3-5 to Brhadvisnu. Similarly the Smrticandrika (II. p. 298) ascribes Vi. 17. 4 ff to Brhad-Visnu. The Mitaksara (on Yj. 3. 267) quotes a verse of Vrddha-Visnu which summarises some sitras of Visnu "7 (50. 6 and 12-14). In the Anandagrama collection of smrtis there is a Laghu-Visnu- smrti in five chapters and: 114 verses dealing with the duties of the varnas and the four asramas. Apararka in his commentary on Yj. 3. 258 quates four verses from Laghu-Visnu, which are not found in the Anandagrama text. So Aparirka used some other work or perhaps a larger work. The Parasara-Madhaviya often quotes gadya- प The verse of afte © FA तु सकं देयं पादोनं GAT सतम्‌ | यमक पादस्त्‌ ्रजातिषु शस्यते ॥ The ००५२५ are ब्राह्मणं इत्वा दवादशसंवत्सरे Sig । पादोनं erred । अर्ध वेश्यवमे । aa TT । 70 ERdory of Diarmatistra Vigsnu and padya-Visnu. The former from a quotation in vol. I. part 2, p. 234 seems to be the Visnu-dharmasutra itself. In the Sarasvativilasa numerous sitras of Visnu with the explanations of Bharuci thereon are quoted, which are not found in the printed Visnu.'"8 a The Visnu-dharmasatra was commented upon by Nandapandita, author of several works on dharmaSastra, who wrote at Benares the commentary called Vaijayanti ( according to certain mss. ) in 1679 (i.e. 1622-23 A.D.) of the Vikrama era. Dr. Jolly publishes extracts from this commentary in his edition of the sutra. From the fact that the Sarasvativilasa quotes several times the sitras of Visnu with Bharuci’s explanation, it looks probable that Bharuci commented upon the Visnudharmasatra. For further infor- mation on Bharuci vide sec. 61. So far only the printed and well-known dharmasitras have been passed under review. But there were nnmerous other dharma- stitras which are either now extant in rare mss. or are not yet discovered but are only to be reconstructed from quotations. It is now time to discuss them. 11. The Dharmasutra of Harita That Harita was an ancient sitrakara on dharma is quite patent from the fact that the dharmasutras of Baudhayana, Apastamba and Vasistha quote him as an authority (vide pp. 25, 39, 54). Apastamba quotes Hiarita more frequently than any other author. From this it may == = LE 1 1, ता । Ne छ 2 ह ae ए 777. 1 1 0 al 118 ०. &. para 637 यथाह भारुचिरेतद्विष्णवधनभ्याख्यानावसरे बीजशब्द्‌ः पिण्डवाचीति | ( Vignu's stra seems to have been बीजम्रहणानुविधाय्मशं गृह्णीयात्‌ ); pare 719 अन्न भारचिः ( ०० विष्णु "° सूत्र ‹ पितृष्यपितभातुभिरेव संसर्गो नान्यैः ) वैकल्पिकोयं संसग विधिरिति; Pere 136 अन्नः ones मिन्नोद्राणामिति नि्धोरणे qe} ( ०० विष्णा qa‘ Pract संसृशटिनो गृह्णीयुः" ) $ Para 847 contains a long stra of एण ‘ अपत्यं गामं धामं मत्रं वेयमाकस्मिकमादशाब्दं प्रविभाज्यमत ऊर्वं स्व॑मविभाज्यम्‌ ° and para 848 contains भाहि ‘s explana- tion of it. Vide pp. 32, 50, 165, 166, 243, 244 &o. of the recently published Mysore edition of the qzeqdifaaig for sutras of Visnu which are not found in the printed text of Visnu. It appears that the सरस्वतींविल्छासं had a very much larger version of the stra before it, 11. The Dharmasiira of Harta 71 be concluded that they belonged to the same Veda. The Tantravartika (vide note 55 above ) mentions Harita along with Gautama and other sitrakaras on dharma. From Visvaripa down to the latest writers on dharmaégastra Harita is most profusely quoted. From the quotations it appears that his dharmasitra was perhaps the most extensive of all dharmasitras. The late Pandit Vamansastri Islampurkar discovered at Nasik a ms. of the Harita-dharmasitra. It was not possible for me to make use of it for the present work. Dr. Jolly (in R. und S. pp. 8-9) gives an account of the ms. from which I give a summary. It is so faulty that an edition based on it alone cannot be thought of. The ms. contains thirty chapters. So far as the language and contents are concerned the work impresses one as ancient, but the material citations ascribed to Harita in later digests on court procedure and the law of crimes &c. are not found in the ms. The prose is mixed up with verses in Anustubh and Tristubh metres, which are often introduced with the characteristic words <^ athapyudaharanti ” as in other dharmasitras. The ms. quotes ‘ bhagavan Maitrayani’ and the verse ^ Satadiyo viro” which is Maitrayaniya Samhita I. 7. 5 Dr. Caland points out remarkable correspondence between the cita- tions of Harita and the Maitriyaniya Parisista and Manavaéraddha- kalpa. All this tends to show that he was a sttrakara of the Black Yajurveda. The numerous quotations from Hiarita in Apastamba and Baudhayana are not however found in the ms. The ms. was found at Nasik, which is also the source of two mss. of the Maitra- yaniya Sarhhita. The Kashmirian word ‘kaphella’ is cited in Harita and so the Harita-dharmasitra probably originated there. Heméadri ( caturvarga III. 1. 0. 559 ) mentions acommentator ( bhasyakara''? ) of Harita. From the numerous quotations from Harita in the nibandhas it appears that the dharmasitra dealt exhaustively with the same topics as are dealt with in other dharmasitras, viz. sources of dharma, brahmacarin of two kinds ( upakurvana and naisthika ), suataka, the householder, the forest hermit, prohibitions about food, impurity 0 — sete eng etre en ~ >~ = --*~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ a oe ae eee ee ee । - = क —e . 119 The sttra of Harita is « पलङ्कन्था-नालिका-पातीक--शिगु--ससुक-वातकि-" म॒स्तण--कफछ-माष-मसुर--रूतलवणानि च ANS न दयात्‌” ०० which gang says, Ste: आरण्यविरोषः काश्मीरेषु प्रसिद्ध हति हारीतस्मतिभाष्यकारः,. व ' History of Dharmatistra on birth and death, graddha, the panktipavana, general rules of con- duct, the five yajiias, Vedic study and holidays, duties of kings, rules of statecraft, court procedure, the various titles of law, duties of husband*and wife, various kinds of sins, prayascittas, expiatory prayers &c. According to Kullaka (on Manu 2. 1 ) the Harita-dharmasutra opened with the words ‘ now then we shall explain dharma ; dharma is based upon revealed texts (Sruti ); revealed texts are of two kinds, the Vedic and the Tantric."7°” The quotations show that this very style was pursued in the body of the work. Apararka (on ४३. III. 322 ) quotes a satra'*’ in similar style about a penance ‘tulapurusa’ said to have been promulgated by Siva himself. The sutra often introduces verses as quotations with the words ‘an author says thus” ( evarh hyaha ; vide Apararka on Yaj. I. 83, I. 154, 1. 135, Vivada-ratnakara pp. 443, 626). Numerous passages quoted as Harita’s are identical with passagesfrom other dharmasastra works. The sitra ‘ Jayapatyorna vibhago vidyate’ is quoted as from Harita by the Smrticandrika (II. p. 268), which is the same as Ap. Dh. S. II. 6.14. 16. The same work quotes ‘pratyaksavidhanad garhasthyasya ’ as from Harita which is part of Gautama 3. 35. A verse about the enormity of usury quoted in the Smpticandrika (I. p. 177 ) as Harita’s is almost the same as Baudhayana (I. 5. 79 ) and Vasistha'?? (2.42). A verse about atipatakins (quoted by Aparirka on Yaj. 1. 231 ) isthe same as Visnu 34. 2. Manu is mentioned by name in several verses ( vide Smrticandrika III. p. 426, Vivada-ratnakara 0. 552-553). Iwo verses are cited in the Vyavaharatattva ot Raghu- nandana as found in Harita, Baudhayana (I. 10. 30) and Manu ( 8. 18-19 ), A verse quoted by the Smpticandrika (Il. p. 21 ) is almost the same as Manu 8. 95. Several times we have the words ‘Prajapativaco yatha’( vide Apararka on एव]. I. 154 and Smrti- candrika I. p. 187 ). पित्रा seems to have relied upon the views 220 ` अथातो धम व्याख्यास्यामः। श्रुतिप्रमाणको धर्मैः । श्रुतिश्च Rite वैदिकी तान्तिकी ब ॥ १, The Brahmayajfia probably takes the words अथातो," , स्यामः from हरीत and not from the Vaisegika-stitra, 181 अथातक्लिनयनोक्तस्य तुठापुरुषस्य Bet भ्यार्यास्यामः। 188 The verse is‘ meet बृद्धिजीवं च तुक्छया समतोखयत्‌ । अविष्ठ meg कोटा बृदधिजीवस्त्वकन्वत TST ॥ 11. The Dharmastitra of Harita 73 ot ‘dcaryas’ in several places.'?} He often quotes the views of others ( eke, apare'*+ ) and sometimes refutes them.'*5 Harita refersto the Vedas, the Angas, dharmaéastra, metaphy- sics, and other branches of knowledge.'76 The quotations do not show that he belonged to any particular Veda, as he quotes from all the Vedas promiscuously. In this connection it is worthy of note that though Kumiarila mentions H§arita as an ancient dharma- sitrakara, he does not assign him to any particular school, while he Some of the doctrines of Harita are worth noting. He speaks of eight forms of marriage, but two of them are styled Ksatra and Manusa, while Arsa and Prajapatya are omitted ( vide Viramitrodaya, Samskaraprakasa, p. 84). Vasistha has the same nomenclature (I. 29 ). प्रतता speaks of two sorts of women ( brahmavadinis and sadyovadhas) and states that the former were entitled to have the Upanayana performed, to kcepthe sacred fireand to study the Vedas.'27 He speaks of the twelve kinds of sons (vide Haradatta on Gautama 28. 32 ). He looks down upon the profession of an actor and forbids the employment of a Brahmana actor in any 5124473 or rite for gods.**8 Apararka (on Yaj. II.3332 ) quotes from Hiarita a lengthy passage in mixed prose and verse, where the worship of Ganesa comes in.'?9 188 विभ्वं on २}. 1. 195. ‹ तन्मान्रच्छेदनमेके वाससाम्‌ । न वा साधारणध्वात्‌। साधी. रणं हि वास इत्याचार्याः । तस्मात्सर्ववाससामुपधातापनोद्नादेवं शदिः । ', sates on शक}. 1.154. « SAVE MUIR: > शद्‌, पा, ४. 704. ‘a छथ्दानामयं लोको न पर इत्याचार्या › , 184 Vide मद्‌, षा, 70. 607, 706; स्पतिच° all. p. 483, अपराकै on YSj. II. 137, 125 अपराकं ०० YS). 1. 185. ‹ यानशयनान्यपरिहययाण्येके मन्यन्ते | तन्न । वर्णविदेषात्‌ शुङ्कमदिनसंसर्गदर्शनात्‌ पापसंसरगयोगा्च तस्मात्‌ पृथक शौषाण्टेयासः | 126 स्मृतिच. 77. ०. 200. वेदा ay ध्मौभ्यात्मं विज्ञानं स्थितिम्यति षड्विध श्रतम्‌ । 137 द्विविधाः जियः । nite सथयोवध्वश्च । ay अद्धवादिनीनामुपनयनममरीन्धनं बेद्‌ा- ध्ययने स्वगृहे अं भिक्षा । quoted in स्म॒तिच्‌ 9 1. p. 24. and जतुर्विशतिमत- व्याख्या ( Benares ed. ) p. 113. 188 कुशी लवादीन्‌ दवे पिश्ये च Wie । Woted by अपराः on २७. 1, 232-324. 139 We have there the names सालकररंकट, कूष्माण्डेराजपुत्न, भदह्यविनार्यक, वक्रतुण्डं, WAS, For the firat two vide जानवगृष्छसुश II. 14 and याज्ञ, 1. 285 ff. We De 20, 44 History of Dharmatiuire A very interesting question is the relation of the verse quotations from Harita with the prose quotations from Harita. The dharma- stitra was probably interspersed with verses as is the case more or 1655 with all dharmasatras except that of Gautama. But there are mumerous verses ascribed to Harita in the ntbandhas, which are manifestly modern. Both the Mitaksara and Apararka (on Yaj. I. 86 ) quote Hirita’s verses eulogising the sati. The Smpticandrika CII. p. 344 ) quotes his verses that refer to the signs of the Zodiac. There are numerous verses containing elaborate rules of procedure, ascribed to प्रिता, which are quite foreign to the general atmos- phere of the ancient dharmasitras. All such verses must be ascribed to a comparatively later date. In the Suddhimayakha it is said that certain verses quoted from the Mahabharata by Harita are not found in several copies of the Mahabharata. Dr. Jolly (in 1889) collected together most of the prose and verse citations from Harita on the Vyavahara section. In Jivananda’s collection, we have a Laghu-Harita smrti ( 1. pp. 177-193) anda Vrddha-Haritasmrti (I. pp. 194-409). The former contains seven adhyayas and about 250 verses, dealing with the duties of the four castes and the asramas and with Yoga. The latter is professedly a Vaisnavite work, said to have been proclaimed by Harita to Ambarisa; it is divided into eight chapters and contains about 2600 verses, dealing with the mitya and naimittika rites of the varnas and asramas, the nature of the individual and supreme self and the means of attaining moksa. In the Anandaégrama collection of smstis, Vrddha- Harita is divided into eleven chapters, the first two of: Jivananda’s being split up into five. The Anandaégrama collection contains a Laghu-Hiarita-smrti in 117 verses which is different from the Laghu- Harita of Jivananda. The former deals with purification from pollutions of various kinds, with prayascittas, rules about impurity on birth and death, sraddha and a few rules about inheritance, partition &c. It is noteworthy that Apararka ( on'Yaj. III. 254 ) quotes Vrddha- Harita and Harita, both in prose, one immediately after another. That the Vrddha-Harita in verse is comparatively a late work follows from the fact that it distinctly recites that the smrtisof Manu, Yajfiavalkya, Narada and Katyayana were known to it as authorities 11, fhe Dharmasttra of Htrita v3 on raja-dharma."3° Some of the quotations ascribed to Laghu-Harita in Apararka and other works are found in the Laghu-Harita, €. g. the verse ‘vina yajfiopavitena’ (Laghu-Harita, Anandasrama, verse 23) is quoted by Apararka on Yaj. III. 289. Some verses that are as- cribed to Harita are found in the Laghu-Harita, for example, the verse ¢ snanam krtv4 tu ye’, cited by the Smrticandrika (I. p. 203), occurs in the Laghu-Harita ( Anandaérama, verse 41). It appears that several compilations were made at different times, embracing different topics of dharma and ascribed to Harita, probably because they were based more or less on the Haritadharmasatra. That some of the verses ascribed to Harita are very ancient follows from several considerations. Forexample, Visvardpa quotes ( on Y4j. III. 246 ) a verse from Harita. The Sarasvativilasa quotes from Hiarita a brief passage which appears to bea portion of a verse and Katy4yana’s explanation thereon.'3* It follows that long before the sixth century A. D. Harita existed in verse. For Harita on Vyavahiara, vide sec. 56. 12, The Dharmasutra of Sankha-Likhita From the Tantravartika we learn ( note 55 above) that the Dharmasitra of Sankha-Likhita was specially studied by the Vaja« saneyins ( the followers of the white Yajurveda). The Tantravartika also quotes a few words from that dharmasitra which constitute an Anustubh pdda.32, The Mahabharata ( Santi. chap. 23 ) contains the story of the two brothers Satkha and Likhita. In the Santi- parva ( 130. 29 and 132. 15-16 ) the word Sankha-Likhita seems to be used in a double sense, Sankha also meaning the forehead. Ye jfiavalkya ( 1.5 ) mentions Sankha-Likhita among the writers on dharmasatra. The Parasarasmrti says ( 1. 24 ) that in the four ages of Krta, Treta, Dvapara and Kali, the ordinances of Manu, Gautama, Sankha-Likhita and Paragara are respectively of paramount authority 01 1 १911 150 रानधर्मोयमित्यवं प्रसङ्गात्‌ कथितो भया । कात्यायनेन मनुना याज्ञवल्क्येन न धीमता ॥ नारदेन च संप्रोक्तं विस्तरादिद्मेव हि । तस्मान्मया eater ates नृपोलम ॥ ( Jivananda I, 4th chap. p. 265; Anandaérama, 7th chap. 270-273 ). 181 हारीतेनापि केचन मेद्‌ Ten: । एकमूलो दिरत्थानो दिस्कन्धो Res: 1 कस्यायनरतु तानू ष्या षषे । ४०० उल्लास, 9. 91 ( Mysore edition ). 133 लन्तरवार्तिक, ?. 139. ‹ स्म तंषमाधिकारे हि शङ्कलिसिताभ्यामुक्म्‌ - आनायः स्मृति- ~ भरकः” : 28 . , व of Dhacmatidira +) in matters of dharma. Visvardpa (on Yaj. III. 248 ) quotes a verse from an ancient author which says that Sankha and Likhita pondered deeply over the dharma promulgated to the sages by Manu and drew upon the Veda'33 also. Commentators and nibandhakaras from Visvarapa downwards profusely quote Sankha-Likhita. A consi- derable portion of these quotations is in prose. Hence it is quite clear that the dharmasttra of Sankha-Likhita is an ancient one, that it was largely if not entirely in prose and that it was once easily accessible though it has not yet been discovered. In the Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (vol. VII-VIII ) I made an attempt at a reconstruction of Sankha-Likhita. Jivananda (collection of smrtis, part II., pp. 343-374) prints in ‘r8 chapters and about 330 verses a smpti of Satkha and a smrti of Likhita in about 93 verses (part II., pp. 375-382). The Anandasrama collection also prints the same text of the two smrtis. The latter also contains a Laghu-Sankha-smrti in 71 verses and a Safkha-Likhita- smrti in 32 verses. All these, except perhaps the Sankha-smrti in 18 chapters, are late compilations. The smrti in 18 chapters seems to have been compiled very early. About fifty verses from it are quoted by the Mitaksara. In the वपो and 12th chapters occur a few prose passages, one of which is quoted even by Medha- प्रप. The numerous prose quotations ascribed to Sankha- Likhita do not however occur in these smrtis. One point deserves special notice. Comparatively early writers sometimes ascribe the same text to Safkha-Likhita or to Sankha simply. The well-known 50118 about succession toa son-less man (athdputrasya svaryatasya bhratrgami dravyam &c. ) is ascribed to Sankha by Visvarapa and the Mitaksara, but to Sankha-Likhita by Apararka ( on Yaj. Il. 135- 136). Similarly the satra ‘pitaryasakte kutumbav Mohr eat jyesthah’ &c, is asaribed to Sankha by Apararka and to Sankha~Likhita by the Vivada-ratnakara, Dayatattva and Madanaparijata. Quotations ascribed to Likhita are few and far between. Some passages are ascribed by some writers to Sankha and by others to Likhita. For example, a prose passage ‘ Uddhrtya pariksitabhih’ &c. is ascribed to Likhita by Apararka (on Yaj. 1.18) and to Sankha by Visvarapa (.on ४३}. I. 20 ) and by the Viramitrodaya ( Ahnikaprakaga p. 68 ), Similarly the sdtra ‘ubhabhyimapi hastabhyam pratmukho deva- tirthena kuryat’ is ascribed to Sankha—Likhita by the Paragaramadhe- 188 समीक्ष्य निपुणं धर्ममृषिभ्यो मनुभाषितम्‌ | MATT TST arent सिसेतह्तथा 9 18. The Dharmastirva of Sankha- Likhita क~ viya (I. 1. p. 352) and to Likhita by Apararka (on Yaj. I. ror), The relation of the Sankha-smrti in verse to the dharmasitra of Sankha seems to be this. The former is based upon the latter and is a versified paraphrase or adaptation of portions of the dharmasitra.*34 The versified Sankha shows a tendency towards greater strict- ness. The dharmasutra allows a Brahmana to marry a woman of any of the four castes, while the verse Satkha restricts him to the first three castes.35 It is not unlikely that the dharmasatra cone tained a few verses as is the case with Baudhayana, Apastamba and Vasistha. Even soearly a writer as Visvaripa looked upon the ‘prose and verse portions as the composition of the same author ( vide his comment on Y4j. III. 237, and Aparirka pp. 1149, 1154, 1161 ). The dharmasutra of Sankha-Likhita was commented upon early. Laksmidhara in his Kalpataru ( Ghose’s Hindu Law vol. II., p. 504) draws attention to the fact that the bhasyakara of Sankha read a well- known sutra as ‘sa yadyekah syat’ instead of ‘sa yadyekaputrah syar’. Laksmidhara flourished between 1100-1160 A. D. as he was a minister of Govindacandra of Kanauj. The Vivadaratnakara (1314 A. D. ) also cites the bhasyakara of Sankha-Likhita. The Vivada- cintamani (p. 67 ) quotes from the bhasyakara of Santkha-Likhita. The dharmasttra of Sankha-Likhita would appear, from the quotations in the nibandbas, to have closely resembled the other extant stitras on dharma in style and contents. It embraced almost all the topics treated of in Gautama or Apastamba. It agrees very closely with the words of Gautama and Baudhdayana in several places. 36 It is curious to note that a quotation from Sankha 134 Compare ggeq प्रिपूतामिरद्धिरिवोक्षितामिरक्तारामिरनधिभिताभिरफेनाभिरबुहरदाभिः ( quoted as Sadkha’s by the वृर ९, आद्धिकमकाष्ठ, p- 68) with apart 9. 6 ‘aR: समुदतामिस्तु gant: Saget । वहिना बप्यद्ग्धामिरङ्गुलीमिरपस्पृशेत्‌ ॥ 135 The दुयमाम (ed. of 1829, p. $10) quotes CATE: कायाः ‘SAARI भेयस्यः सर्वेषां स्युरि Tiers | ततोनुकस्पश्यतस्रो ब्ाह्मणस्यानुपु्येण " } the शेङ्खस्मरति (५.7) says ‹ बराह्मणी क्षत्रिया वेश्या ब्राह्मणस्य मकीर्तिता ॥ 136 Compare ‹ नाब्राह्यणोतिधिभह्चणस्य ' (quoted in वीर्‌ ०, आहिक ०, 0. 452) with गो. lag, 8. 80-485 ° दुन्तवदुन्तलमेषु' (quoted by अप्राकं on याज्ञ. I. 195) with a}. ष, सू. I. 41-43; ‘a तिष्ठन्न प्रणतो नाङ्कलीभिः' ( चतुर्ग * IIT. 1, p.977) with बो. ध, चू. I, 5, 25, 8 । i Setory of Dharmatisira “containing the names of writers of smrtis cites Sankha-Likhita as authority .'37 The dharmasttra seems to have permitted niyoga, speaks of twelve secondary sons, and did not favour (like Apastamba ) the claims of females to succeed to males. On certain points the dharmasttra of Satikha marks a more advanced state of opinion than is the case with Gautama or Apastamba. Sankha speaks of several kinds pf ordeals and appears to have contained elaborate prose rules ‘about them (vide Apararka on Yaj. II, 95 ; Smrticandrika र, p. 112, Viramitrodaya, 2. 270 ). As regards partition ahd inheritance, Sankha-Likhita gives more detailed information than Apastamba or Baudhayana. The limits of Aryavarta's® stretched over wider areas according to Sankha (i. e. to the east of Sindhu-Sauvira and to the west of Kampilya ) than is the case with Baudhayana (1. 1. 25 ) or Vasistha (1. 8-9 ). The style of Sankha reminde one of Kautilya rather than of Gautama. The quotations hardly exhibit any ungram- - matical forms. It is noteworthy that Yajiiavalkya is included among the authors of smrtis by Sankha ( vide note 137 above ). If it is the extant Yajiiavalkya-smrti that is meant to be referred to, then ` the dharmasitra of Sankha will have to be assigned to a late date. But this does not seem to be likely. From the fact that the Yajfia- valkya-smrti itself enumerates Sankha-Likhita among ancient authors on dharma, from the general style of the work, from the develop- ment of the legal conceptions it presents and from its doctrines about the rights of women, it appears almost certain that the extant Y4jiia- valkya-smyti is much later than the dharmasttra of Sankha. There are close correspondences between Sankha and Yajiavalkya.'39 19 ¢ स्मरति््मशाख्लाणि तेषां प्रणेतारो मनुयमदृक्षविष्ण्वङ्गिरोवृहह्पल्युशनआपस्तम्ब- गोतमसंवर्तौभ्निहारीतकात्यायनशेङ्कलिखितपराशरण्यासशातातपभ्रचेतोयाज्ञवल्क्याद्‌यः । quoted in चतुर्वर् I. p. 527; वीर ° परिभाषा ०, ए. 16 and स्मति्च. 18 ‹ देश oral गुणवान्‌ ... प्राक्‌ सिन्धुसीवीराहक्षिणेन हिभवतः पण्यात्काम्बिस्या उदक्‌ धारिषोन्रादनषद्यं MITT | › quoted in वीर्‌ ०, परिभाषा ०, 9. 57. 189 compare ‘ qgwa वा सौमिन्तः > शद्भुः १४०४० in अतुवेगे ° III. 2. p. 784 with याह्ञ, I. 11; ¢ AEH यथाकृलम्‌ ¢ शङ्खः ( quoted in TAG ® Ti1.2., p. 743) whe याज्ञ. 1. 39 : "वरानाहरे्सटशनसमानारपेथानत्तम्बन्धानासपमपर्चययत्‌ पित॒मात- बन्धुभ्यः ' UE { quoted in gyvqqy ०० ang, ध. सु. H. 5.11.16) with „ ह्न I. 58, 18. The Dharmastiva of Ba. 0 The prose quotations from Satikha-Likhita refer to the Vedangas, Sankhya, Yoga, dharmasgastra. Sankha recognised eight forms of marriage. The views of Sankha about the status of the offspring of mixed marriages differed from those of Baudhayana (I. 8. 6 ) and Manu ( ॐ. 6 ) and were intermediate between the fatter two." The tarpana'** (which resembles the one in Baudhayana, though it is more elaborate ) refers to the six Vedafigas, Bharata (but not Maha-bhiarata ), to twenty writerson dharma and contains nume- rous details about geography, mythology, and cosmogony which ate generally found inthe Puranas. The dharmasttra frequently cites the opinions of others. It mentions by name the views of Praja- pati, Angirasa and USsanas ( Vivadaratnakara p. 537 ), Pracetasa (Vivadarat. p. 557-560), Vrddha-Gautama (Madana-parijata pp.7o1-2), The verse quotations ascribed to Sankha further mention Yama, Katyayana, and Sankha himself. But in drawing chronological con- clusions it is better to leave the verse quotations out of account. The same verses are ascribed to Manu and Sankha"#? and a few sitras closely resemble the Manusmrti.'4} Six identical verses occur in the Vasistha-dharmasutra (28. 10-15 ) and in the Sankha-smrti ( roth chap. ). All these circumstances lead to the conclusion that the dhafnia- sitra of Satikha is probably later than Gautama and Apastamba but earlier than the Yajiiavalkya-smrti and so must be assigned to some date between 300 B. C. to 100 A. D. 13, Manavadharmasutra—Did it exist ? Following the orthodox view of Western Sanskrit scholars that most of the dharmasitras are older than almost all, if not all, the metrical smrtis, I gave the first place of honour to the dharmasitras of Gautama and others. But my own views differ to a great extent from those of the orthodox school of Sanskritists represented by Max Miller and Buhler. It is high time to state here my views about 140 ‹ ब्राह्मणेन क्षत्रियायामुस्पन्नो क्षत्रिय एव wae” शङ्क ५०४०० in मिताक्षरा on YB). 1.91, 141 Vide चतुग ° IIT. 1. pp. 950-955 and aire आङ्गिक, ?. 366. 5. for तरेण. 142 The verse शर्भामे बै कुर्वीति 1" चतं ० 17. 1. 119 is मनु. ४. 36; ‹ भृतका- भ्यापको यस्त स उपष्याय उश्यते › ५४०४००१ in स्मरति I, p. 84. is मनु II, 141. 143 « इषं गृह्णाति राजन्या प्रतोदं वैश्या दशान्त शत्रा ° quoted in धरा. Ft. I, 2. p. 98 Compare मनु 3, 44. ' ध ` ` Bistory of Dhermtieted the existence of a Manava~dharma-satra supposed to be the original of our extant Manu. Some western scholars, particularly Max Muller and Weber, started the ingenious theory that the extant Manusmrti was a recast or remodelling of an ancient Manavadharmasatra. Max Miller went so far as to enunciate the bold generalisation ‘“‘There can be no doubt, however, that all the genuine dharma-gistras which we possess now, are without any exception nothing but more modern texts of earlier satra works on kuladharmas belonging originally to certain Vedic caranas” (H.A.S.L. pp. 134-135). For this sweeping generalisation there were very few data when it was made, as is admitted by Buhler. This theory of Max Miller was as hasty, as unfounded and as uncritical as several other theories of his such as that about the renaissance of Sanskrit Literature in the early centu- ries of the Christian era, about the absence of the art of writing in India before Panini and about the uniform employment of the sloka for literary purposes in his so-called उत्त period and earlier. Western Scholars had to give up such theories before the stern logic of facts, but they have tenaciously clung to the theory about the Manusmrti being a recast of the Manavadharmasatra. One of the main planks of Max Miiller’s edifice was the now exploded theory about the non-employment of the anustubh during the satra period (which he tentatively placed between 600 B. C.—200 B. C.) for con- tinuous composition. In spite of the fact that one of the main planks has totally collapsed Buhler makes strenuous efforts to rehabilitate Max Milller’s theory by additional 4 priori arguments CS. B. E. vol. 25, pp. उणा ~या and xxxi-xxxrx). The main points brought forward by Buhler are:-(I) The Vasistha Dh. S. CIV. 5-8) contains four sutras, the first of which is ‘The Manava says that one may kill an animal only in honouring the Manes, gods and guests.’ There follow two verses and a passage in prose with iat the end. Buhler argues that all the four sitras are quotations and as the extant Manusmrti is in verse, they must be regarded as taken from the Manavadharmasatra. (II) There are other quota- tions in Vasistha attributed to Manu which either contradict the present Manusmrti or have no counterpart in the latter. Bohler draws §pecial attention to the fact that Vasistha (19. 37) quotes a ro Sloka which is not in the anustubh metre and which has thing corresponding to it in the extant Manusmtfti. 18. Manavadharmasiitra— Did it exist ? $1 (I) A fragment of Usanas quotes an opinion of Manu about impurity, which is in prose.'4¢ Buhler himself points out that here one ms. reads ‘Sumantuh’ for ‘Manuh’. Therefore this argument is of very little uss in establishing the existence of a Manavadharmasitra. Besides, it is possible that the mutilated passage is not a quotation at all, but a mere summary of Manu’s views. ‘There is no ‘iti’ at the end to show that it isa quotation. (IV) Kamandakiya-nitisara (II. 3) says that according to the Manavas the vidyas to be studied by a king are three, viz. the three Vedas, Varta, and Dandaniti and that what is called Anviksiki is but a branch of trayi; while the Manusmrti (7. 43 ) appears to regard the four as distinct vidyas.'45 Kamandaka ( XI. 67) says that Manu prescribed that the council of ministers should consist of twelve "५८ while Manu (7. 54 ) says that the ‘sacivas’ should be seven or eight. Bihler therefore argues that Kamandaka has in mind the Manavadharmasitra and not the Manusmyrtiand on the word ‘Manavah’ makes the following observations ‘ It isa very common practice of Indian authors to refer in this manner to the books restrict- ed to special schools. But 1 know of no case where the doctrines of the Manavadharmasastra or ofany other work, which is destined for all Aryans and acknowledged as authoritative by all, are cited in the same or similar way’ (S. B. E. vol. 25, ए. XXXVIII). In the first place it has to be noted that Kamandaka is only paraphrasing’ the words of Kautilya in the above two places.'47_ Further it is note- 144 In No. 644 of Visdrambag (I) in the Deccan College there 18 a fragment of Uéanas where weread उपस्पृश्य... (४९7) HAUS । TS देशान्तरस्थे चानिके वोरध्वाने (1) अनाशकेपिभवेशे ASA च सद्यः ass, The words बलि देशचाम्तरश्थे occur in Manu 5. 78 in the same connection. For the rest, compare Manu 5. 98 and 95. We must probably read देशन्तरश्थे च सापिके, No. 191 of A 1881-82 is another fragment of Uéanas which contains the same passage, Buhler's mes. read सदयः शोचानष्पति ताभितनिन्दि ताचरिनं सह संवसेत्‌ and he proposes शौचािष्टमिति, 145 The words of the मनुस्मृति are ब्रैवियेभ्यखर्य। Pat दण्डनीतिं च way आन्वीक्षिकी चात्मवियां वातारन्माश्य SA ॥ 166 केमन्द्क 5958 grea मनुः प्राह षोडशेति eerie । seat विंशतिरिति avert मन्नरिमण्डलम्‌ ॥ 147 यी वातौ दुण्डनीतिग्येति मानवाः । श्रयीविशेषो Merete’ कोटिस्य 1. ४; मन्नि- परिषदं दादशरामात्यान्‌ SHA मानवा; षोढेति engeren: विशतिभित्योशनसा, itew 1.15. | M.D. IIe 8% | ` History of Dharmatdstra worthy that Kamandaka employs the word ‘Manuh’ while Kautilya uses the word ‘Manavah’ ( about the number of ministers). ‘There- fore according to the Kamandakiyanitisira there was no difference between the two, viz. the words ‘Manuh’ and ‘Manavah’ denoted the same thing, a work. What Bihler means by his emphasis on the word ‘Manavih’ is not quite clear. Early writers like Kumarila and Visvariipa employ the word ‘Manavam’ with reference to the Manu- smfti just as they use the word Vasistham to denote the Vasistha- dharmasitra ( vide Tantra-vartika pp. 80, 115, 642 and Visvaripa on Yaj. III. 245 and 257). Sankara in his bhasya on Br. Upanisad 1. 4. 17 applies the word ‘manava’ to the Manusmrti ‘ manave ca sarva pravrttih kamahetukyeveti’ ( referring to Manu II. 4) Besides, there is hardly any conflict between the views of the Minavas and the Manusmrti 0) the point of the number of the vidyas. The Manavas knew that Anviksiki was counted as a fourth vidya but said that it was really comprehend- ed in the study of the Vedas. The Manusmrti only lays down from whom the vidyas were to be learnt. As regards the number of ministers, we cannot afford to forget that the Manusmrti (7. 60 ) allows more ministers than seven or eight. Another explanation also is possible. In the final remodelling of the Manusmrti from its original in verse it is not unlikely that a few changes were made. (V) On the strength of the preservation of the complete set of the sitra works of Apastamba on इदा, grhya and dharma (also of Baudhayana and Hiranyakesin ), it is urged that the Manava carava had a ऽप on dharma. The Manavasgrautasatra ( parts 1-5 edited by Dr. Knauer and the chayana by Miss Gelder at Leipzig in 1921 ) and the Manava-grhyasitra ( edited by Dr. Knauer in 1897 and recently in the Gaikwad Oriental Series ) are extant. Bihler admits (ऽ. B.E. vol. 25, p. XXXVIII ) that the main pillars of his arguments are the quotations ascribed to Manu in the Vasisthadharmasitra. The four sGtras of Vasistha (IV. 5-8 ) which arethe sheet anchor ‘of Buhler’s argument have been dealt with above under Vasistha (pp. 53-56). If, as Bithler says, the four sutrasare one quotation, since “iti occurs at the end of the 8th sutra, then we have here a quotation within a quotation, as ‘ iti’? occurs also in sutra 5- But this would be absurd. Besides satra 8 is really summarised from some Brahmapa passage, as indicated above. The proper construction of the four ; 032 0G of 18. Manavadharmasiira~Did it exist ? 8१ satras is as follows ~ The fifth satra merely summarises the views of the Manusmrti to be gathered from Manu V. 41 and 48. The ord ‘ Manavam ’ stands for the Manusmyti just asit does in the Tantravartika and in Visvaripa. Then the two verses of Manu are quoted. In the 8th sitraa Brahmana passage is cited in support of the position that sacrificing an animal is not ‘killing’ ( that leads to sin), ` As regards the few quotations which cannot be found in the extant Manusmrti the following points deserve consideration. The Vasi- sthadharmasitra contains numerous verses identical with those of the Manusmrti. Most of the quotations attributed to Manu are found in the Manusmrti. Hence even if a few quotations are not found in our Manu, we cannot at once jump to the conclusion that Vasistha had before him not the Manusmrti, but the Manavadharmasitra. Besides Bithler is not right in saying that Vasistha 11. 23, 12. 16 and 23. 43 either contradict or find no counterpart in our Manu (ऽ. B. £. vol. 25 p. XXXIV ). Vasistha 11. 23 corresponds with Manu 3. 245-246."48 None of the three contradict anything contained in the Manusmrti. Vasistha 23. 43 ( about Sisukrcchra ) has nothing corresponding to it word for word in our Manu, but it seems to be an echo of Manu rr. 21.49 In Vasistha 12. 16 ( paryagnikaranarh M8 ‹ प्राकूसंस्कारात्पममीतानां स्ववंश्यानामिति स्थितिः । भागधेयं मनुः प्राह उच्छिष्टो स्छेषणे उभे ॥ वासिष्ठ 11. 23 Should we not read स्ववश्यानाम्‌ which would correspond to the word दासवगे in Manu ? मनु reads असंस्कृतप्रमीतानां त्यागिनां कुलयोषिताम्‌ । उच्छिष्टं भागधेयं स्याद्‌ ay विफरभ्च यः ॥ उष्छेषण भूमिगतमनजिहमस्याशटस्य च । दासवगेस्य तसिन्ये भागधेयं प्रचक्षते ॥ ” 9. 245-246 The close correspondence between Vas. and Manu in ideas and phrase- ology should he specially marked 149 वसिष्ठ (४8. 49) ‹ अहः प्रातरहर्मक्तमहेरेकमयाचितम्‌ । अहः पराकं तन्तरकमेषं SATE परो ॥ अनुग्रहार्थं विप्राणां मनु्मेम॒तां वरः । चालबुदध तुरेष्ववं शिशृषच्छर- मुवाच इ ॥ ; मनु 11. 245. ' cag प्रातञ्यहं साये त्हमाद्याचितम्‌ । यहं परं च नाश्नीयात्माजापत्यं WY दविजः ॥. ४ would be noticed that the RSS ` comes to one-third of the प्राजापत्यशष्कर, as the शिशुचान्रायण ( मन॒. 11. 218 ) is a milder edition of the चान्द्रायण. The प्रायाश्यित्त for minors and women was one half or one third of that for adult males (vide qj, ध. सु. | आङ्किरसस्म ८.4. bes th IT. 1,51. and 'रसस्मति verse 33). a7, ध, सू. ( II. 1. 65 ) describes the four day’s observance as the UH for women, minors and old men. याज्ञ, TIL. 319 calls it TIS, 84 History of Dharmattistra hy-etan-manuraha Prajapatih ) there is nothing that contradicts 4 Sur Manu ; that half and the preceding verses bear a close corres म्ण dence to Baudhayana Dh. 5. 1. 4. 2, Similarly Buhler’s argumear पा Manava sloka in the Tristubh metre is not quite sound.. The text of Vasistha is far from satisfactory. On the non-occurrence of that verse or a corresponding Sloka in our Manu no superstructure can be built. Vasistha quotes ( 4. 37 ) a sitra or opinion of Gau- tama which is not found in the extantGautamadharmasitra, Verses — ascribed to Vasistha in the nibandhas are not found in the printe? | text of Vasistha ( vide n. 108 above. ) The analogy of the works of the schools of Apastamba and others can furnish no proof. There are on the other hand weighty grounds for discarding that analogy altogether. It is a remarkable fact that excepting the three caranas (of the Black Yajurveda ) of Apastamba, Baudhiyana and HiranyakeSin that arose and flourished in the southern portion of India, no carana of any of the other Vedas has an extant dharmasatra ascribed to the founder of the satra-carana. An explanation is suggested in the following lines. The Brihmanas in southern India were in the very early days of their colonisation surrounded by-.an alien culture and by alien customs. It was necessary therefore to formulate dis- tinctly the rules of general conduct for the Aryan community in southern India, that studied the Black Yajurveda. The same neces- sity did not exist in northern India, where the members of the sntracarayas knew their ordinary every day duties very well, and were more or lessa homogeneous community with the same ideals and culture. Therefore in the beginning when manuals of Srauta and grhya ceremonies were first composed, it was not thought nece- ssary to compose set treatiscs on dharma for each carana. Some of the rules of conduct were embodied in the grhya sitras because they were germane to the subjects treated of in them (such as the duties of Brahmacarins and householders, holidays etc. ) Works, however, dealing with the general usages prevalent among the Aryan community in various parts of northern India must have been composed early enough. When the knowledge of ibe existence of the complete set of the satra works in the Apastamba “other carayas of the Yajurveda in southern India permeated to ‘rn and central India, the leaders of the carayas cast about for works@hat would complete the works of their carayas and bring 13. Manavadharmastitra-——Did it exist ? a5 them in a line with those of Apastamba and others. Therefore the various carayas seized upon several dharmasitras and adopted them in their schools for study. This must have occured at a compara- tively early date. For Kumiarila, as we saw above, enlightens us as to what dharmasitras were specially studied in which Vedic schools. The fact that, though Gautama and Vasistha are said to have been specially studied by the students of the Simaveda and the Reveda respectively, there is hardly anything in these dharmasitras that specially connects them with the two Vedas affords some corro- boration of the above hypothesis. This assimilation of independent dharmasitras into individual satracarayas probably took place before or in the first centuries of the Christian era. Sabara (on Jaimini I. 3.4) seems to make fun of the dharmasttras when he says that the direc- tion to observe brahmacarya for forty-eight years was a device of those who wanted to hide their impotence ( Gautama 2. 52, Ap. Dh. S.J. 1.2. 11-12, Baud. Dh. 9. 1. 2. 1. speak of brabmacarya for 48 years ). This shows that these dharmasitras could not have been regarded as very authoritative by all early writers. Jaimini I. 3.11 (according to Sabara) denies the independent authority of Kalpasatras. It appears that the Manava school, which according to the cara- navyaiha was a subdivision of the Maitrayaniya, dwindled in numbers very early. Kuméarila, who was a most learned and profound student of the various branches of Sanskrit literature, nowhere men- tioned the Manavadharmasitra as studied by followers of the Black Yajurveda, though he mentions Baudhayana and Apastamba as stu- died by them. He places the Manusmrti even higher than the Gautamadharmasttra and betrays no knowledge of the existence of the Manavadharmasitra. ViSvaripa who is generally identified with Suregvara, the pupil of Sankara, remarks that the Manavacarana is not existent ( or found ).15° The foregoing discussion will, it is hoped, induce every impartial critic to endorse the conclusion that on the materials so far available the theory that the Manavadharmasttra once existed and that the extant Manusmrti is a recast of that stitra must be held not proved. 14. The Arthasastra of Kautilya This epoch-making work was first published by Dr. Shamasastri in 1909 in the Mysore Sanskrit Series and was also translated by him. Pandit T. Ganapati Sastri of Trivandrum has published the work $50 नन च APTA ATM TST p. 18 of विष्थ्प्‌ ५ comment on आद section, 86 History of Dharmatistra with his own commentary called Srimala. Dr. Jolly and Dr. Schmidt edited the text with a valuable introduction and the commentary, called Nayacandrika, of Madhavayajvan on portions of the text in the Punjab Sanskrit series at Lahore. In this work the edition of 1919 by Dr. Shamasastri has been used. This work has given rise to frequent and furious controversies about its authorship, its authenticity and its age and it cannot be said that we have heard the last of this din of controversy. Moreover this work has inspired besides numerous articles in journals several monographs, some of which have somewhat high sounding titles, such as Narendranath Law’s ‘ Studies in Ancient Indian Polity,’ Dr. P. Banerjis ‘Public Administration in Ancient India,’ Ghosal’s ‘ History of Hindu Political Theories, ’ Majumdar’s ‘Corporate Life in Ancient India,” Benoy Kumar Sarkar’s ‘Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus,’ Jayasval’s ‘Hindu Polity,’ Prof. ऽ. V. Visvanathan’s ‘International Law in Ancient India (1925 2). Itis not possible to discuss at great length all the problems about Kautilya here. Only a brief statement can be attempted. For fuller study reference may be made to the following works and papers :— Hillebrandt’s ‘ uber das Kautilyasastra und Verwandtes’ ( Breslau 1908 ), ZD MG vol. 67, ‘pp. 49-96 (Dr. Jolly ), ZD MG vol. 68, pp. 345-359 and vol. 69, p. 369 f; JRAS 1916, pp. 130-137 ( Prof. Keith ), I. A. for 1918, pp. 157-161 and pp. 187-195 ( Dr. Jacobi translated by Dr. Sukthankar ), Dr. Kalidas Nag’s ‘Les Théories Diplomatiques de |’ Inde ancienne et l’Artha- astra’ (Paris 1923) and its translation in ‘Journal of Indian History’ vol. V, Dr. Otto Stein’s ‘Megasthenes und Kautilya’ (Vienna 1922 ), K. V. Rangasvami Ayyangar’s lectures on Ancient Indian Polity €.Madras 1916), Dr. Winternitz in Calcutta Review 1924 and in his history of Indian Literature (vol. III, pp. 509-524), I. A. for 1924, pp. 128-136 and 141-146 (Dr. Jacobi translated by Prof. Utgikar ); Dr. Johann J. Meyer’s ‘Das altindische Buch vom Welt- und Staats- leben das Arthagastra des Kautilya’ ( Leipzig, 1925 ) and Prof. N. €, Bandopadhyaya’s exposition of the social ideal and political theory of Kautilya. The Indian Antiquary for 1925 (pp. 175 and 201 ) -gives an exhaustive bibliography on the date of Kautilya. ˆ ` The Kautiliya is the oldest extant work on Arthaégastra. Though Arthasastra and Dharmasastra are often contradistinguished -on account of the difference of the two Sastras in ideals and ip the 14. The Arthatasira of Rautilya 8१ methods adopted to reach them, Arthagastra is really a branch of DharmaéSastra as the former deals with the responsibilities of kings for whom rules are laid down in many treatises on dharma.5' For this reason and the further reason that the Kautiliya contains two sections ( called dharmasthiya and kantakaSodhana ) on the administration of justice, the Arthagastra of Kautilya deserves careful consideration in this work. According to the Caranavyaha of Saunaka, Arthasastra is an Upaveda of Atharvaveda. The purpose of this Sastra as stated in the Kautiliya itself is ‘to prescribe means for securing and preserving ( power over ) the earth 7.० Yajiiavalkya distinctly states (II. 21 ) that in case of conflict between Dharma- S4stra and ArthaSastra, the rule is that the former prevails 753, Narada also (I. 39 ) says the same thing.'5¢ From comparatively ancient times Canakya alias Kautilya or Visnugupta has been credited with the composition of a work on Arthagastra. The Kamandakiyanitisara '55 pays a glowing tribute of praise to Visnu- gupta, who, singlehanded, brought about the downfall of Nanda, bestowed the earth on Candragupta and distilled from the ocean of Arthgastra the quintessence, his work on politics. Kamandaka further tells us that he looked upon Visnugupta as his guru.'s¢ The Tantrakhyayika (H. 0. S. vol. 14) which is certainly not later than 300 A. D. pays homage to Canakya the Great as one of the authors of treatises on Politics. 7 Dandin in his Dasakumaracarita 151 ' धमेशाख्ान्त्गेतमेव राजनीतिलक्षणम्थंशाखमिदं विवक्षितम्‌ › मिता० om Yas. 71. 91. 159. तस्याः TUS छामपालनोपायः शाखमर्थशाखमिति । कौ. 15.1. 8० 818 the very 879 sentence is "पृथिव्या छाम पालने च यावन्त्यथेशाख्ाणि पूर्वाचर्थैः प्रस्थापि- तानि प्रायशस्तानि संहृत्येकमिदमर्थशाखं रुतम्‌ ।' 153 अर्थशाज्ञात्तु बलबद्धमशखमिति स्थितिः । 154 यच्च SMT स्या दमेशःखार्थशाखयोः | अर्थशाखकेमृत्सृज्य धमरासलोकतमाचरेत्‌ ॥ 155 यस्याभिचारवज्ेण वजज्वलनतेजसः । पपात मूलतः श्रीमान्‌ सुपवां नन्दपर्वतः ॥ एकाकी मन्त्रशक्त्या यः शक्त्या MBIT । आजहार नृचन्द्राय चन्द्रगुषाय दिनीम्‌ ॥ नीतिशाखाम्रतं धीमानर्थशाख्महोद्धेः | waged नमस्तमे विष्णुगुाथं वेधसे ॥ काम. 1. +6 156 ‘fq एवेता हति नो गुरुद्शनम्‌ ।* sere 77.6; ‹ चतस्र एव षया इति कोटिल्मः' कोटिलीय 7. ४. | 57 भनषे वाचस्पतये शुक्राय पराशराय ससुताय | चाणक्याय च महते नमोस्तु FTN कर्तृभ्यः || Verse 2, 68 History of Dharmatastra (section VIII, p. 131, 2nd edition B. S. Series) says that the teacher Visnugupta compressed Dandaniti for the sake of the Maurya king into six thousand slokas and quotes passages from Canakya.'s* Bana associates the work of Kautilya with harsh and cruel expedients.'59 The Pajicatantra identifies Canakya and Visnugupta and speaks of Canakya as the author of Arthasastra (vide part I. p. 2 ed. by Kielhorn part II. p. 65 and part III. 50 ed. by Buhler). Kautilya figures very largely in the Puranas (vide Pargiter's ‘dynasties of the Kali age’ pp. 69-70 and Visnupurana 4. 24. 26-28 ). He has a prominent place in the Brhatkatha of Gunadhya, as appears from the works of Ksemendra and Somadeva. The Mychhakatika (I. 39 B. ऽ. series ) refers to Cainakya. The Mudraraksasa identified Canakya and Kautilya and suggests the derivation of the latter name from ‘Kutila’ (crooked).'°° Some of the above items of information are supported by the personal references contained in the Arthagastra itself. At the end of the first chapter of the first adbikaraya, Kautilya is said to be the author of the Sastra and at the end of the roth chapter of the second adbikaraya Kautilya is said to have laid down the rules for royal edicts for the sake of the षट. The last verse'® tells us that he who impatiently wrested the earth from the Nanda king composed the work and after the colophon a verse tell us that seeing the differing interpretations of bhasyakaras on the Arthasastra, Visnu- gupta himself composed the stitra and the bhasya. The first question that arises for consideration is the authenticity of the work, that is, the question whether it can be the work of the ४६8 ‹ इयमिदानीमाचायविष्णगुपेन Hale wit: श्ठोकसहसेः Pera # द्शकुमार ०४77; सत्यमाह चाणक्यः ‘ चित्तज्ञानानुवर्तिनोऽनथां अपि प्रियाः स्युः । दक्षिणा अपि तद्वाव- बदिष्छता द्वेष्या भवेयुः > दृशक्रमार्‌ VIII. Compare aida ४, 4 verses at the end. | 159 + येषामतिनुशसप्राये।पदे शनिधरंण कटिस्यशालं प्रमाण › क।द्म्बरी ए. 109 (Peterson). 160 कृोटिल्यः कुटिलमतिः स एष येन क्रोधो प्रसभमदाहि नन्दवंशः । मुद्ाराक्षस F 161 सुखग्रहणविज्ञेयं तस्वाथपदनितिवितम्‌ । केटिस्येन रतं शुखं विमुकतमन्थविस्तरम्‌ ॥ कटिलीय 7. 1; सरवशाच्ञाण्यनुक्रम्य प्रयोगमुपलभ्य च । करटिस्येन नरेन्द्राय शास. नस्य विधिः Gas ॥ काचिरीय 7. 10 168 येन शाखं च शखं च नन्द्राजगत। च भूः । अमर्ेणोद्रतान्याशु तेन शङ्घमिदं कृतम्‌ ॥ ap विभरतिपत्ति बहुधा शालेषु भष्यकाराणाम्‌ । स्वयमेव Ren at षं भाष्यं, 14. The Arthaétsira of Kautilya 89 famons minister of Candragupta Maurya, who was a contemporary of Alexander, and who must therefore have flourished about 320 B.C. This question very largely depends upon the age of the work. But other considerations, more or less of a‘subjective character and de- pending upon the absence of certain things from the Kautiliya, must be dealt with first. Jolly, Keith and Winternitz hold that the extant Kautiliya is not the work of the Maurya minister. One argument, viz. that a person like Canakya who had to build a vast empire such as that of Candragupta and who was bent down with the cares of the empire could not have found time to write such a work, may be brushed aside as entirely futile, being a purely subjective argu ment. Some persons may say that he could have found time, just as Sayana and Madhava could find in later days, to write such a work in the midst of all cares, while others may deny the possibility of such a thing. Similarly most of the arguments from the silence of the Kautiliya are also quite unconvincing and lead to no certain and universally acceptable conclusion. The non- mention of Pataliputra or of the empire of Candragupta is of very little use in deciding the question of the authenticity of the work. The argument of Stein and Winternitz that in Megasthenes’ account of India no great person named Canakya or Kautilya appears and that the former’s account of the condition of India does not tally with that presented by the Kautiliya is of very little weight. We have no means for finding out what proficiency Megasthenes had acquired in the languages of India so as to be able to hold conversation with all sorts and conditions of men. Besides it is well known that Mega sthenes’ writings have been handed down in a fragmentary state and that he often spins his own yarns. Megasthenes declares the Indians to be unacquainted with writing. But no Western scholar would now subsribe to the view that writing was unknown in India about 320 B.C. Dr. Jolly himself has to remark that the idealising ten- dency in Megasthenes greatly impairs the trustworthiness of his statements ( p. 40, Introduction to Kautiliya). This question of the authenticity of the work is bound up with the question whether it can be the work of an individual author or whether itis the pro- duct of a school. Hillebrandt vehemently argues that it is the pro- duct of a school and Jacobi as vehemently repudiates that hypothesis. The great stumbling block according to many scholars in the way of regarding Kautilya as the author of the work is the fact that the ie of Kautilya are cited by name about 80 times in the work Be 1.22 90 History of Dharmatastfo itself almost always in opposition to the views of other teachers. But there is nothing specially to be wondered at in this. In order to avoid looking too egotistic, ancient authors generally put their own views in the third person as said by early writers like Medha- tithi and Visvarapa.'®} It has to be admitted that the first person singular also is used by ancient writers, though rarely.'*¢ Jacobi (I. A. for 1918 p. 188 ) and Keith are both wrong in thinking that the view of Kautilya is criticized by Bharadvaja in V. 6. Kautilya states his position first and then mentions the view of his prede- ८९७5०0८." Dr. Jolly (Intro. to Kautiliya p. 44) is wrong in his expla- nation of Apadega (in XV. 1.76 >). That word is applied to passages which mean ‘this or that author says this or that’ and the Kautiliya cites from his own work a case of the statement of various views on a certain point. These words do not at all indicate that according to the Arthasastra Kauti- lya was a stranger. Keith thinks (J. R. A. ऽ. 1916 p. 135 ) that as Kautilya is derived from Kutila, an author will not cite his own views under such an cpithet. It is not unlikely that Canakya ac- quired the epithet Kautilya on account of his methods in dealing with the Nandas and that as he did so from no purely selfish motives but for ridding the country of such tyrants as the Nandas are represented to have been, he might have come to relish the name given to him by the people. It has to be noted in this connection that many of the writers quoted in the Kautiliya bear nicknames ( such as Pisuna, Vatavyadhi, Kaunapadanta ). This leads to the question as to whether the name 15 Kautilya or Kautalya. Hillebrandt seems to imply that all mss. employ the first form, while Pandit T. Ganapatisastri says his mss. support the latter form though in the first few pages he prints Kautilya. Mss. of the Kadambari, the Paficatantra and other works support the form Kautilya and the Mudraraksasa does the same by pointedly hinting at the etymology ~ = 169 ‹ प्रायेण म्रन्थकारा; स्वमते पर पदेशेन ब्रवते मेधातिथि, OM याज्ञ. 1. 2 विश्वरूप says किं तु मगवतेव परोक्षीकृत्यात्मा निर्दिश्यते erate tea । 16४ यास्क 9४५8 तान्यप्येके समामनति ... तत्समामने ` निरुक्त VIL. 13; vide egy, I. 56 ( न तन्मम wa यस्मात्‌ &c.) and IT, 133 165 एवमेकेश्वर्यममत्यः कारयेदिति कौटिल्यः | नैवमिति भारद्वाजः 166 एवमस्तावहित्यपदेशः । “ मन्त्रिपरिषदं द्वादशामात्यान्‌ SAA मानवाः षोडशेति बाह स्पत्याः वितिमित्योशनस्षाः, यथासामथ्यमिति कोटिल्यः ’ इति 14. The Arthatisira of Kautilya 91. A-com. on the Kamandaktyanitisara styles the Kautiliya as Kutala- bhasya and Kutala is said to be a gotra. The form Kautalya is said to occur in an inscription at Ganesar in Dholka dated Vikrama Sathvat 1291 ( 1. e. 1234-35 A. D. ). Vide Indian Historical Quarterly vol. I. p. 786. It is very difficult to decide between the rival claims of the two forms, but it appears that the form of the name, Kautalya, is due to a later attempt to solve the difficulty of an author parading his views as those of a man nicknamed “crooked”. Whether Kutala or Kautalya was known as a gotra rsi in ancient times-is extremely doubtful. Neither the Aévalayana-srauta-satra ( Uttarasatka, 6th chap., roth Kandika ) nor the Apastamba-érauta- sitra ( 24. 5-10 ) mentions Kutala among the several gotra groups. In later works on gotras, we find the name in several forms. In the Pravaradarpana of Kamalakara Kautali is said to be one of the Jamadagnya-Vatsa group of the Bhrgus( p. 156, edited by P. Chent- salrao, Mysore ) and’ Kautilya is assigned to the Yaska group of the Bhrgus (2. 158). The Pravaramafijari enumerates the Kautilyas €. 32, of the edition by P. Chentsalrao, Mysore ) among the Yaska roup of the Bhrgus, alsoamong the Saradvanta group of the Gautamas, a branch of the Angirasas, (p. 161) and Kautili as one ot the Bhrgus ¢p. 42). We have to remember that so early a writer as Kamandaka (who was well known to Bhavabhatiand Vamana’s Kavyalankarasutra- vrtti ) who is assigned to the third centery A. D., and the Tantrakhyayika distinctly assign a work on politics to the minister ef Candragupta. No weighty arguments have been advanced so far why this tradition vouched for so early should be disregarded. Keith finds it impossible that in the words ‘six thousand Slokas’ used by Dandin the word Sloka could mean a unit ( in prose) of 32 letters. But Dandin is evidently repeating the words that occur in the ArthaSastra itself at the end of the first chapter, षन Before proceeding to discuss the age of the Kautiliya, it is advisable to say a few words on the form, style and contents of the work. The work is divided into 15 adhikaranas, 150 chapters, 180 topics and contains 6000 Sglokas ( 1. €. units of 32 letters). The work is in prose interspersed with a few verses. Each chapter has 197 शास्लसमुद्ेशः पञ्चदशाधिकरणानि सपच्चाशदध्यायशतं साशातिभकरणशतं षट्श्लीक- सहस्राणी | These words of the Kautiliya must mean 6000 upits of 93 Jetters and nothing else. 92 । History of Dharmatistra at. the end at least one verse and sometimes more.- A few verses occur also in the midst of some chapters as in I. 8, 1. 15, II. 10, I. 24, V. 6, VII. 5, शा. 6, भा. 9, VIN. 13, >. 3, श्वा. There are about 340 verses excluding mantras. Almost all these verses are in the Anustubh metre, only eight verses being in the classical Indravajra or Upajati metres (in II. 9, II. ro andX. 3). In our utter ignorance about the literature on Arthasastra prior to Kau- tilya it is impossible to say how many or these verses are borrowed and how many are of his own composition. There can be no doubt that some of these verses were composed by him (e. g. the two verses in I. 10, where the views of Aciryas are given, and the words *etat Kautilya-darganam’ occur ). It appears that some verses are clearly quotations. For example, the verse ‘ nasya guhyam’ at the end of I. 15, and the verse ‘ sathvatsarena patati’ at the end of IV, 7 are Manu 7. 105 and 2. 180 respectively. The last occurs in Baud, Dh. S. If. 1. 62 and also in Vas. I. 22. The two verses in the Upa; jati metre in X. 3 ‘y4n yajfiasanghaih’ and ^ navarh garavam ' occur respectively in the Paraéaradharmasastra (chap. III. p. 12 of Jivae nanda, part II) and in the Pratijia (IV. 37%). It is noteworthy that they are introduced with the words‘ apiha Slaukau bhavatah ° and follow a quotation from or summary of a Vedic passage. \welve verses in VII. 9 are introduced with the words ‘ tatraitad bhavati ’ and may be quotations. A few of the verses bear a close resemblance to verses of other works ; e.g. the verse ‘ prstah pri- yahitam brayat’ (in V. 4 ) which is very similar to Manu. 4. 138. In some cases he connects verses with his own words, e. g. the words ^ kurvatasca’ with ‘ ndsya guhyam’ (at the end of I. य; )and the last verse of II. 25. The style ofthe Kautiliya is simple and direct. It is not concise like that of the Vedanta or Vyakarana sutras. It resembles the dharmasuatras of Gautama, Harita and Sankha-Likhita, but is not as archaic as that of Apastamba. According to the commentaries the several headings of the a rakaranas are sutras and the contents of them the bhasya ( vide ayacandrika pp. 137, 143-44 &c., edited by Dr. Jolly). It 2Dounds in numerous technical and rare terms. It is generally in र —— ee ee ० comp "किन 168 The manner in which the Tisaqep brings in this verse does not show that it is the author’s own. The verse is preceded by the words शृण्वन्तु . भवन्त and 18 probably put in as a weighty utterance from some ancient *"\urce. 14. Tee Arthalasira of Kautilya ost accordance with Panini’s grammar, though such un-Paninean words as ° papisthatama’ (in VII. 11 ) rarely occur. It employs the word ‘avyaya’ in the masculine (II. 10 ), while Panini (I. 1. 37) em- ploys ‘avyayam ’. The whole work on account of its careful arrangement of topics and unity of design impresses one as the product of a single brilliant mind. The Kautiliya sheds such valuable light on the social, eco- nomic, political and religious life of ancient India and contains infor- mation on so many topics that it is not possible to convey any idea of its contents in a brief summary. The subjects of the fifteen adlikarayas are :— I. the discipline of the king, sciences to be learnt by him, the place of Anviksiki and politics, qualifications of mini- sters and purohita and. their temptations, the institution of spies, council meetings, ambassadors, protection of princes, duties towards harem, king’s personal safety ; IJ. about superintendents of various state departments, founding villages, pastures and forests, forts, duties of the chamberlain ( sannidhita ), the commissioner for revenues from forts, country, mines, forests, roads &c. ; accountant- general’s office ; embezzlement of public funds ; royal edicts; exa- mination of precious stones for the treasury and mines; superinten- dent of gold (1. €. of coins issued from the mints ) ; superintendent of store-house ( of agricultural produce &c.), of commerce, of forests, of arms, of weights and measures, of tolls, of weaving, of liquor houses, of slaughter houses, of prostitutes, of shipping, of cows and horses, of the capital and cities ; II. Administration of justice, rules of procedure, forms of marriage, duties of married couples, stridhana, twelve kinds of sons ; other titles of law; IV. removal of thorns, protection of artisans, merchants, remedies against national calamities such as fires, floods, pestilence, famines, demons, tigers, snakes, etc ; suppression of those who live by foul means; detec- tion of juvenile crime ; arrest of criminals on suspicion, accidental or violent deaths, torture to extort confessions ; protection of allkinds of state departments ; fines in lieu of cutting off of limbs, sentence of death with or without torture ; intercourse with maidens; punish- ment of fine for various wrongs ; V. conduct of courtiers, award of punishment for treason, replenishing of treasury in case of emer- gency ; salaries of state servants, qualifications of courtiers, conso- lidation ot royal power; VI. constitution of the mandala, seven elements of sovereignty, qualities of king, peace and arduous work as the source of prosperity ; sixfold royal policy; threefold Sakti ; VII. circle of states is the field for the employment of the six lines of policy ; the six gunas (sarndhi, war, neutrality,marching, taking shelter and dvaidhibhava ) ; causes leading to the dwindling and disloyalty of armies; combination of states; sarndhi for the acquisition of a friend, gold or land; an enemy in the rear; recouping of lost strength ; a neutral king and a circle of states ; VIII. about vyasanas (vices and misfortunes ) of the several elements of sovereignty ; troubles of the king and the kingdom ; troubles of men and of the army; IX. work of an invader, proper time for invasion, recruitment of the army, accoutrements, internal and external trouble, disaffection ; traitors, enemies and their allies; X. about war; encamping the army, march of the army, battle-fields, work of infantry, cavalry, elephants 8c. ; array of troops for battle in various formations ; XI. concerning corporations and guilds ; XII. concerning a powerful enemy ; sending an envoy ; intrigues, spies with weapons, fire and poison and des- truction of stores and granaries ; capture of the enemy by stratagems; final victory; XIII. capture of forts; sowing dissensions ; enticing of king by stratagem ; spies in a siege ; restoring peace in a conquered country ; XIV secret means, strategems for killing an enemy, pro- ducing illusive appearances ; medicines and incantations ; XV divi- sion of this work into sections and their illustrations. It would be interesting to say a few words separately on the chapter about judicial administration. Dr. Jolly has collected together the passages of the Kautiliya on judicial administration that bear a very close resemblance to the several works on ancient Indian Law ( vide Z.D.M.G. vol. 67, pp. 51-90). It will be seen therefrom that there is the greatest correspondence between the Kautiliya and Yajnavalkya. It 15 00 doubt true that many passages from Manu and Narada agree closely with those of the Kautiliya but not to the same extent as those of Yajiiavalkya. A few striking examples are quoted below.'69 The question then arises whether there is SS AO A 7 oe gue [| 169 (») अभियुक्तो न प्रत्यभियुञ्जीत अन्यत्र कठहसाहससार्थसमवायेभ्यः । न TATRA योगोस्ति । को. 117. 1; अभियोगमनिस्तीयं नेन प्रत्यभियोजयेत्‌ । क्यात्मत्याभि- योगं च कलहे साहसेषु च ॥ याज्ञ. 71. 9-10; (b) प्रतिरोधकम्याधिदुर्भिक्षमयपरतीकारे धर्मकाये च पत्युः। को. 777. 9; afte anand च व्याधो संप्रतिरोधके । गृहीतं लीधनं मत। न किये दातुमहति ॥ याज्ञ. 11 147; (०) सोदयोणामनेकापितृकाणां पितु- तो दायविभागः । कौ. 177. 5; अनेकपितृकाणां तुः पितृतो भागकल्पना | याज्ञ. 7, 10; 14, The Arthatasira of Kauttlya $5 borrowing and if so who the borrower is. The agreement in phraseology is so close that it must be regarded as a case of borrowing and in my opinion it is the Yajhavalkyasmrti that borrows. The reasons are many. Yajiiavalkya represents on numerous points of law a very great advance upon the doctrines of Kautilya. Kautilya does not contain distinct directions upon the four stages of a law suit ( plaint, reply, proof and judgment ) nor upon the threefold aspects of proof ( documents, witnesses, prescrip- tion ). Yajiiavalkya goes into all these matters. The Kautiliya does not recognise the widow or mother as heir to a sonless man ; Yajiiavalkya does so. Kautilya does not mention the bandbus as heirs ; he hardly says anything about re-union.'7? The Kautiliya divides the stridhana of a woman dying during her husband’s lifetime among her sons and daughters, while Y4j. prefers the daughters to the sons.'7" It is not necessary to multiply examples. It goes without saying that Yajnavalkya represents a far too advanced stage of juristic principles than the Kautiliya and so must be later than the latter by several centuries. The Kautiliya agrees very closely with Manu also, but considerations of space prevent me from going into the points of agreement. There are however numerous funda- mental points on which Manu and the Kautiliya disagree. Kautilya allows niyoga even in the case of Brahmanas (last verse of IIT. 6 and at the end of I. 17 about kings). Manu first speaks of Niyoga and then condemns it ( vide 9. 57-63 and 9. 64-68). As Brhaspati refers to this factin Manu’s फला], it appears that the ( १)नष्टापहूतमासाय स्वामी weds म्राहयेत्‌ | देशकालातिपत्तो वा स्वयं गृहीत्वोपहरेत्‌ | कौ. 171.16 ; नष्टेपहतमासाय हर्तारं ग्रहयेनरम्‌ | देशकालातिपत्तो च गृहीत्वा स्वय- aaa ॥ याज्ञ. 77. 169; (०) वानप्रस्थयतिबह्म चारिणामाचार्यशिष्यधमभतसमन- deal रिक्थभाजः । का. 771. 16; वानप्रस्थयतिब्रह्मचारिणां रिक्थभागिनः | करमेणाचयेसच्छिष्यधमेशरन्नकतीर्थिनः ॥ याज्ञ, 71.197. 170 But see ‹ अपितृद्रव्या विभक्तपितृद्रष्येः सह जीवन्तः पुनर्विभजेरन्‌ › की. 111. 5. This contains a reference to reunion. 171 जीवाति want म्रतायाः पुत्रा दुहितर्य Stet विभजेरन्‌ । अपुजाथा दुहितरः । TTA मतां । को. 777. ४; अमजःज्ीधनं भतुबाहञादिषु चतुष्व॑पि । दुहितरणां प्रसुता Qraty पितगामि तत्‌ ॥ याज्ञ. 71. 145. 173 अुहरपति'५ word are “उक्तो नियोगो मनुना निषिद्धः वयमेवं तु 5 vide कुलक on मनु 9.68 for the whole quotation, ee ee ~~ ~= ee eS Omen. 98 -. , 18. Dharmatistra passages condemning miyoga were put in probably earlier than the fitst centuries of the Christian era. Though Kautilya speaks of almost the same 18 titles as those in Manu (8. 4-7 ) almost under. the same names, there is a slight difference. Manu has no such title as Prakirnaka. Kautilya speaks of upanidhi and extends the same rules to Niksepa, while Manu speaks of the title as Niksepa. The ancient dharma-satras do not give the technica] names of the eighteen titles of law, though some of them do occur therein. Vak- parusya and dandaparusya occur in G. Dh. S. (12. 1) and Vas. (17.61). Baud. seems to have known the term ‘Strisafigrahana’ ( Dh. S. II. 2.54). Steya occurs in all. Gautama speaks of nidht ( Dh. S. 12.39). Manu positively says (9. 155 ) that the son of any member of the first three varnas from a Sadra woman does not inherit his father’s wealth (though the preceding verses 151-154 seem to lay down different rules), while Kautilya allows such a sona share when there are sons born to a Brihmana from wives of higher castes or one third when he has no other sons (III. 6). Manu expressly mentions the mother and paternal grandmother as heirs ( 9. 217), while Kautilya appears to ignore them. Manu prohibits the remarriage of widows ( V. 161-165 ), while Kautilya allows not only widows to remarry, but alsowives whose husbands have not been heard of for a year or more according to circumstances (III. 4). Kautilya allows a wife to desert her husband, if the latter is of a bad character, has become a traitor to the king, endangers her life or has become an outcaste or impotent?73 (last verse of III. 2). Kautilya further seems to have allowed divorce which is unknown to any other known lawgiver, but he bases it only on the ground of mutual hatred and says that a marriage in the approved forms cannot be dissolved'74 (III. 3 ). Manu isvery harsh upon gamblers and asks the king to supress gambling and banish gamblers ( 9. 221-224 ), while Kautilya only brings gambling under the control of the king for the purpose of detecting thieves &c.( II]. 20). Manu first allows a Brahmana to marry even a Sadra woman and then con- demns such a thing (III. 13-19), while Kautilya does not condemn. such unions. These divergences and others lead us to conclude 178 yi परदेशं वा प्रस्थितो राजकिल्विषी । प्राणाभिहन्ता पतित्त्याज्यः sat वी पातः ॥ Ble 174 अमोस्या मतुरकामस्व द्विषती मार्या । मार्योयाश्च भतौ । परस्परं Reverie: । अमोक्षो धर्मविवाहमनापिति। कौ ०, 14; The Arthatdstra of: Kautilya 97 that the Kautiliya is much older than the extant Manusmrti, which 18 in many matters carried away by puritanic zeal, while its older portion is more in harmony with the spirit of the Kautiliya. Therefore the Kautiliya is long anterior to the time when the extant Manusmrti took its present form. The Kautiliya refers to the opinion of the Manavas in five places. Two of the views ascribed to the Manavas by Kautilya are the sama as those which Kamandaka (II. 3 and XI. 67 ) ascribes to Manu. According to the Manavas, the vidyas to ‘be studied by a prince were three, viz. trayi, varta and dandaniti, what is called Anviksiki being but a branch of trayi; and the council of ministers was to consist oftwelve. ‘The Manusnmiti ( 7. 43 ) appears to regard the vidyas as four and lays down ( 7. 54 ) that the Council should consist of seven or eight sacivas. Bihler and others on account of this difference in the views of the Manavas and the Manu- sinrti thought that Kautilya was referring to the Manvadharmasitra. In my humble opinion the evidence for the existence of a Manavya- dharmasitra is practically nil, as detailed above in section 13. From the references to Svayambhuva Manu and Pracetasa Manu contained in the Mahabharata, particularly in the Santi and Anusasana parvans it appears that there were two works in verse on dharma and _ politics attributed to thesc two or there was one work containing both. These works were subsequently recast as the Manusmrti. It is therefore that some difference is noticed between the views ascribed to the Manavas aud the extant Manusmrti. Besides there is no real conflict in the matter of vidyas. The Manusmrti does not posi- tively say that the vidyas are four and not three; it simply says from ‘whom trayi and the other three are to be learnt. The Manusmrti (in 7.60) allows more ministers than seven or eight. It is possible that in recasting several changes.were made. The third Opinion of the Manavas quoted by Kautilya is about the fine to be imposed upon officers of the state occasioning loss of revenue (II.7). The other two views of the Manavas quoted are concerned with the fine to be imposed on false witnesses and for forcible seizure of jewels'?’ &c. It must be admitted. that in the extant Manusmrti there is nothing exactly corresponding with these views. But from this fact no one conclusion alone can be drawn. There may be a mistake in quoting, or there may be inter- ee ee MS कृटसाक्षिणो. यमथेममूतं चा नारयेयुस्तदहरागुणं दण्ड ददुरिति मानवाः । को. TIE 11 5 HUTT साहसे FTG वृण्ड इति मानदाः । क, I, -. Hs De 13. be प्ण), of Dhurmaltstra polations, it may be that some of the verses in the original Mana» smyti have dropped out or that Kautilya is quoting ‘not the Manu- smrti itself, but the views of works based on or explanatory of Manu. It is noteworthy that Brhaspati'7® contains a verse very similar 4 the views on sahasa attributed to the Manavas. We shail see ‘below that Brhaspati’s work was more or less a supplement of Manu. The ` only authors or schools, besides the Manavas, cited by name in the dharmasthiya section are the Barhaspatyas and the Auéganasas. It is remarkable that the well-known and ancient Dharmasttrak&tas like Gautama, Apastamba, Baudhayana, Vasistha, Harita are nowhere quoted by name. It is noteworthy that in the dharmasthiya section Kautilya several times quotes the views of 4ciryas and.of some cathers under the word “‘ apare”. Some of these views correspond closely ‘with the discussions in the ancient dharmasitras. One of these is - the question as to whom the child belongs, to the begetter or to #ि 0 whose wife it is begotten. Kautilya first quotes the view ‘of the A4ctryas that it belongs to the husband of the mother of the child, then says that some hold that it belongs to the begetter, while tilya holds that it belongs to both.*77 It-is 20 be:noted here that both Baud. and Ap. say that according .to . the Brahmanas the sons belong to the begetter, while Vasistha says there.is adispnte on the point, both views being supported by rancient authorities. Gautama speaks of both views and at last ( 18. 23 “4dvayorva” ) seems to come to the same conclusion as. Kaurilya. . -It -its not unlikely that Kautilya has in mind this discussion. in the (Dharmasttras and also in Manu.( 9. 48-54 where the view is that nhe-child ‘belongs to the husband of the woman). Some -of the other views-attributed to aciryas are that a woman could visit the ‘thousesiof her fhusband’s relations, of prosperous men, of village head- “tnen, of female ascetics &c. (III. 4); that very poor men «ould idivide-even waterpots ata partition (II. 5); that the master who did mot‘eiiploy:a servant ready to work according to agreement -had to 476 सियिनेहिमरल्नानि Salant तथा 1 "योयं et प्भ्यमे्ां मूर्कसमो वमः । WEA ४०४९० in `ईवर्वंहरभयस OD साहस "227 grate Sime क्षेत्रेण हत्यायाः । माता भका यस्थ Vereen । कियमानसुभवमिति कोदेस्यः |B U7. Vorpate- A, gg. 18 KIS बौ qq प. *B. 3५26 ; नपि. श. TI. ९, 3. "ग्नो "tite "मति विड shreg*wittedite दिके. कज) विहि 99. 14. Tha Acthaliistvs of. Keufilya ध pay-the wages agreed upon as if the work had been finished (compare Visaw V.. 247); he who forcibly confined a man er woman or wha by force released another frons imprisonment was. to be fined between gao:and 1000 € प्रा. 17); that disputes of a remote date shall not be camplained of and that he who is. the first to complain. wins, since ane; mins ¢ to court ) as one cannot bear the pain (III. 19); that in a complaint by one gambler against another, the successful party: has to pay the: fine called parvasthasa and’ the defeated party the fine called madhyasahasa ( II. 20 ). The foregoing discussion about the dharmasthiya section shows that in the sphere of the administration of justice, Kautilya is far in advance of the dharmasitras of Gautama, Apastamba and Baudhayana and sq is much later than these ( though in certain matters such as the rights of women to succeed to males he closely agrees with Gautama and Apastamba), while he is earlier than the extant Manusmrti ( though not earlier than the oldest kernel of the Manusmyti ) and very much earlier than Yajiiavalkya. ‘Fhe question of the date of the Kautiliya can be settled only approximately. and for that we have to rely only on the internal evidence. The external evidence does not carry us far; we can only. say, that the Kautiliya is certainly not later. than the 2nd century A. D.,. since Kamandaka, the Tantrikhydyika, and Bana, speak of it with admiration. No one claims it to be earlier than joo ए. C. JRven Keith who assigns it a late date and cannot place it earlier than 190 B. C. at the most has to admit (J ए A ऽ 1956, p. १३९ ) that for ॐ precise date we have no real ground. The Kautiliya quotes five schools by name: Manavah (five times ), Barhaspatyah ( 6 times), AuSanasah (7 times ), Parafarah (4 times ), Ambhiyah ¢ once ) and the following individual authors ; Katytyana (1), Kifijalka ( 1 ), Kaunapadanta ( 4), Ghotakamukha (1), € Dirgha ) Cartyana ( 1), 2005474 (2), Pisuna (6), Pigunaputra (1), Bahudantiputra (1), Bharadvaja (7, once as Kaninka Bharadvaja ), Vatavyadhi ($ ), Visalaksa (6). He either differs from all these authors or they differ from each other in all the places where they are cited. Alt the individual authors that are cited only once occur on the same page (except Babudantiputra ). He quotes the views of dcaryas over fifty times and in each case differs from them. ‘“Acaryas”.means the gncient authors on the Sastra £00 _ History of. Dharmatastra. . collectively. Even the Nirukta quotes certain views as -those’ of Acaryas. Kautilya is cited about 80 times. The Kamasatra. of Vatsyayana mentions a Ghotakamukha and a (ततरा). Whether they are identical with the authors cited by Kautilya is extremely doubtful. The Mahabharata mentions among writers on Dandaniti the following who occur in the Kautiliya also :--Brhaspati, Manu; Bharadvaja, Visalaksa, Sukra ( the same as 11627025 ) and Indra (probably Kautilya’s Bahudantiputra ), whose abridgment, of Brahma’s work is called Bahudantaka in the Santiparva (chap. 59 ). ` According to the Nayacandrika, PiSuna, Bharadvaja, Kaunapa- danta and Vatavyadhi stand for Narada, Dronacarya, Bhisma and Uddhava respectively ( pp. 73, 69, 74, 91 ) The Mahabharata mentions other writers on politics, viz. Gauragiras, KaSyapa, Utathya, Vamadeva, Vasuhoma, Kamandaka, ( Santiparva 123. 11) and a few others which are not found in the Kautiliya. | The Kautiliya knows the four Vedas, the charms and incanta- tions of the Atharvan, the six 0045, includes under itihisa, Puranas, Dharmaéastra and Arthagastra; it knows the Sankhya, Yoga and Lokayata'7® schools of thought. It mentions Mauhiartikas, Kartintikas ( astrologers ), Jupiter and Venus. It refers to dhatu- 5252 ( Metallurgy ). Sanskrit was the official language and in the Sasanidhikara it mentions such gunas of composition as madhurya, audarya, spastatva, which show the beginnings of the Alarhkara astra. There is nothing to wonder at in this. In the second century A. D. we have the inscription of Rudradiman, which enumerates the gunas of Kavya. The Kautiliya does not mention edicts on stone or copper. It refers to Vaisikakalajfiana (II. 27). The Kautiliya closely agrees with the Kamasitra in several respects, and the two works contain several identical passages ( such as the list of kings that fell victims to intrigues and about trivarga ). Keith argues from this that the Kautiliya and the Kamasatra are not separated by a long interval and that it is a late work. Dr. Jolly also is of the same opinion (p. 24 Intro. to ArthaSastra). If the Kamasatra held up the Kautiliya as its model, then the two works would certainly look very much alike. There are points of difference 178 लोकायत occurs in the महमाष्य OD वणका ताष्तबे (पा, VII, 3. 45 ). Vide Kielhorn vol. ए. pp. 325-326. 14. The Arthatastra of ‘Kautilya 10f between the two works, e.g. they differ in their attitude towards flesh-eating and the Kamasutra speaks of planetary influence and lagna, while the Kautiliya is silent on these points and only condemns in general terms the consulting of stars. We must note here that the Kautiliya ( IX. 4) speaks of consulting naksatras, which were known from the earliest Vedic period and some of which were looked upon as auspicious for sacrificial purposes even in the Satapatha Brahmana (S. B. E. vol. 44, pp. 1-2) and the Srauta and Grhya sitras. The Kautiliya follows the Vedanga Jyotisa in the system’ of a yuga of five sarhvatsaras, in prescribing two inter- calary months in a yuga and in saying that at the end of one ayana the variation between the length of the day or the night comes to six. muhartas ( vide II. 20 ). Keith argues that the Slokas in the Kautiliya are more classical than even those of the Ramayana and that it contains correct Tristubh stanzas which are wanting in the Brhaddevata ( a work of tbe 4th century B. C. ). But this argument can produce no impression on those scholars who ascribe the Ramayana to the sth century B.C. or earlier. Nor is the date of the Brhaddevata beyond the pale of discussion. There is no consensus of opinion among scholars as to the exact time when classical Slokas and correct Tristubhs first came into vogue. It is to be noted that the Kautiliya defines pada as varnasahghata and not as in Panini ( sup-tinantarn padam ) Among the countries and peoples frequently mentioned by Kautilya, several are interesting. He speaks of silks from the land of the Cinas'79 and blankets from Nepal. Keith says that the name Cina being derived from the Thsin dynasty in China ( which began its rule in 247 B. C. ) this would show that the Kautiliya could not have been composed about 300 B. C. No one however knows how the word Cina was derived and besides as Keith admits the passage may be an interpolation. He speaks of the Sangha of the Vrgnis (1.6) and the Sresis ( corporations ) of Ksatriyas in the countries of Kambhoja and Surastra that lived by varta (agriculture and trade ) and by the profession of fighting and the corporations of the Licch- civika, ‘Vrjika, Mallaka, Madraka, Kukura, and the Kurupanicalas that live on the title ‘raja’ (XI. 1). Some of these tribes such as the Licchavis, Vrjis ( Vajjis in Pali ) and Mallas are well-known from ancient Buddhist works. What is meant by ‘ rajasabdopajivipah” aah’ 119 तथा PS चीनपदट्य बीनमूमिजा भयाखूयाता; t को. 7. 11. 1m . Midtory of Dharualieira isinest. quite clear. 1t probably means that the erganisation of the Liechavis and others was‘on democratic lines and that there was very een competition for the honour of being elected the chief or president of those corporations, the latter being designated ‘ raja’."** The Nayacandrika explains. that they bear the proud designation of ^ कोन" ut are penniless (and so can be easily employed in military: seavice 25. mercenaries ). We are told that the breed of. horses from: Kambhoja, Sindhu, Aratta and Vanayu was the best and that Bahlika, Papeya, Sauvira and. Taitala breeds were of middle quality. The Kautiliya speaks of Mleccha tribes and tells us that among _them. one’s own children. could be sold or pledged without incurring punishment (IH. 13 ). There is hardly any distinctive reference to things Buddhist except one passage ( III. 20 ) where a fine of one hundred € payas ) is prescribed for him who invited to dinmers in honour of gods or Manes a Buddhist (Sakya ), an Ajivaka, a Sidra ascetic.8* Fhis shows that the work was written at a time when Buddhism was yet not a wide- spread religion and had not secured an honourable place among the people. The Ajivika was a well-known sect in ancient India, said to have been founded by Makkhali Gosala (vide V. A. Smith’s Asoka, pp. 134, 198 of edition of 1909, I. A. 1912, p. 286, ‘ Dialogues of Buddha’ 1, p.71, n.1, Journal of Bihar & Orissa Society, 1926, 70. 53-62). Asoka bestowed some caves on them. Kautilya says that weights should be made of iron or of stones from Magadha and Mekala ( country near the sources of the Narmada ).** It is extremely doubtful whether the Kautiliya knew the extant text of the Mahabharata. Most of the stories used as illustrations in the Kautiliya occur in the Mahabharata ( €, g. Aila, Duryo- dhana, Haihaya Arjuna, Vatapi, Agastya, Ambarisa, Suyatra i.e. Nala). But in some cases there is slight divergence between the two works, e. ह. Janamejaya 15 said ta have perished through having attacked Brahmanas in anger, while the Mahabharata (XII. 150 ) gives a different version ; Kautilya says (IV. 8 ) that Mandavya, though not a thief, declared 1380 Ta the Jétakas ( Fausbdl! wol F, p. 564 and vob. IFL., p: 1) reference is made te the 7707 rajas of the Licchavis in Vesalt ५6; बृषलमबणितान्‌ Saintly store शस्यो qegs et; LL 20. व नि मागकोकठश्षकमवनि + के, ए ५९, | Pee triieltetre df Maktiiya 904 himself to be a thief while the Mahabharata (1. 107. 9) ‘szys that he spoke nothing ; -Kautilya mentions Jayatsena as the oppe- nent of Nala ( VIII. 3 ) in gambling, while the Mahabharata pives his name as Puskara ; the Mahabharata and the Ramayana do net know that a Jamdagnya ruled long as aking.**3 Kautibya seems ‘to have known the Puranas. He says.( III. 7 ) that sata and magadha of the Puranas are quite different'*+ from members of the mixed castes called sata and magadha and includes Purana (1.5 ) among the subjects of royal study grouped under the head of itibasa. | Kautilya exhibits a wonderful knowledge of herbs and drugs and Dr. Jolly thinks that his Materia Medicais more ‘extensive -then even Susruta’s. But the dates of Caraka and. SuSruta are far from being settled and no approximately certain conclusion can be drawn fromthe drugs mentioned in the Kautiliya. Kantilya speaks of ‘rasada’ (-one who administers mercurial poison ) and prescribes banishment for those who trade in or administer ‘rasa’ for money in order to do away with a person secretly (IV. 4.) In II. 13 he speaks of gold that is ‘ rasa-viddha ’ (amalgamated with mercury ).and in II. 12 of liquids.containing gold ( rasa .Kaficanikah ) and of Hin- guluka. Dr. Jolly thinks that this knowledge of metallurgy and alchemy is of Graeco-Syriac origin and so the Kautiliya is a work of the third century A. D It is of great importance to note that Kautilya lays down (1.4) that in the midst of the fort were to be constructed the temples -of Siva, Vaisravana, the Aévins, Laksmi and Madira (Durga ?) and niches were to be set apart for Aparajita, Apratihata, Jayanta and Vaijayanta and that the tutelary deities of the gates were to be Brahma, Indra, Yaina and Senapati (i. €. Skanda ). We know from the Mahabhi- $$"; , ( Kielhorn Vol. II. p. 429 ) on Panini (४. 3. 99 ^ fivikarthe cApatiye” ) that the Mauryas set up images out of greed for money and that in its day images of Siva, Skanda-and Visakha were worshipped 195.शुजुषदूवर्गमस्सज्यं ज।मद्न्भ्यो जितेन्द्रियः । अस्वरीषश्य नाभागो । अन्वरीवभ्य नामागो aera (चरं महीम । का 18४ दोरोणिकस्त्यम्यः सूती मागधन्य बह्महलन्रष्धिरीषतः TS “जप्त geqeaa att न feet रिवः सकन्दः Ree हति । हि कोरणम्‌ । “aie भिदाः पक्रस्पिताः | वेलासु न स्यात्‌ eee: संपाति -पूणार्थाल्सासं witout । agning ‘104 - ` दिनो of नेम . The foregoing discussion clearly shows that the Kautiliya .has certainly an ancient atmosphere about it, and that all that has so far been gathered from it agrees with its traditional date of 300 B. C. and no cogent arguments have been yet brought forward that would compel us to assign it a date later than the above by six centuries. Two commentaries on the Kautiliya have been brought to light so far, one composed by Bhattasvamin being called Pratipadapaficika and.the other the Nayacandrika of Madhavayajvan. Both are frag- ments. The first was published in the Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society ( 1925-1926, vol. XI and XII) by Messrs. K.P. Jayasval and A. Banerji-sastri. The com. is incomplete and begins with the 8th adhyaya of the 2nd adhikarana and reaches up to the 36th adhyaya of the adhikarana. The commentary on the whole work must have been very extensive, as the portion already printed on a part of the 2nd adhikarana alone occupies 214 pages. This commentary quotes the explanations of previous commentators in the words ‘anye’, ‘apare’. It quotes several slokas of Brhaspati on the blemishes of diamonds and on prakaga-taskaras. The com- mentary Nayacandrika contained in Dr. Jolly’s edition (Lahore) also is incomplete and begins with the 7th adhyaya of the 7th adhikarana and breaks off in the 4th adhyaya of the 12th adhikarana. It also refers to the views of its predecessors in the words ‘ kecit’ &c. ( vide PP. 35, 61, 62, 104, 115, 131,191). It discusses various readings (pp. 136, 183, 188, 193 &c. ). Dr. Shamasastri includes in his edition 571 sutras attributed to Canakya. Their relation to the Kautiliya is a subject which requires careful investigation. In my own opinion they are later than the Kautiliya. It would be beyond the scope of this work to enter into details.' Vide Dr. Jacobi’s article in Indian Historical Quarterly, vol. III., pp. 669-676 There are several niti collections attributed to Canakya and pub- lished several times in different parts of India. All of them are later than the Kautiliya and are compilations of maxims and fine sayings. One of them the Canakya-rajanitisastra ( published in Calcutta Oriental series, 1921, 2nd edition ) contains 660 verses and was compiled under Bhojaraja. Several other compilations pass under the names Vrddha-Canakya, Laghu-Canakya &c. All these are passed over here from considerations of space and utility, © ` 18. Vatkh@nasa-dharma-praéna 108 15. Vaikhanasa-dharma-prasna This work has beem published in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series by Pandit T. Ganapati Sastri ( 1913 ). Mahadeva in his*commentary called Vaijayanti (Anandasrama ed. >) on the Satyasadha Srautasdtra speaks of six Srauta sitras of the Black Yajurveda, viz. Baudhayana, Bharadvaja, Apastamba, Hiranyakesin, Vadhila and Vaikhanasa, and frequently cites ei from the Vaikhanasa-srautasitra. In the Caranavyaha of unaka, ४३५१११12 and Vaikhanasa are not mentioned. But that Vaikhanasa was a very ancient writer follows from the references contained in the ancient dharma works. In Gautama the word *‘Vaikhanasa’ occurs ( Dh. ऽ. III. 2 ) as the name for the order of forest hermits ( vanaprastha ) and in another ऽप (III. 26) he lays down that fire was to be consecrated according to the Sramanaka,'®* which latter is explained by Haradatta as Vaikhanasa Sastra. Baudhayana (Dh. S. II. 6. 17) has the same satra'®7 and defines a Vaikhanasa as one who follows the rules of conduct laid down in Vaikhanasa Sastra (Dh. S.II. 6.16). The Vasistha Dh. 9. (9. 10 ) also has the same satra as Gautama (Dh. S. III. 26). The Manusmrti( VI. 21 ) speaks of the Vanaprastha as one who abides by the views of Vaikhanasa ( Vaikhanasamate sthitah ). The Vaikhanasadharmapragna is divided into three 0725025, each prasna being subdivided into khandas. There are in all 41 khandas. The work isa small one. The contents of the work are :- 1. the four varyas and their privileges, and the four dsramas ; duties of brabmacarin; four kinds of brabmacarins; duties of the house- holder ; four kinds of grhastha, vartaurtti ( subsisting by agriculture ), salina, yayavara and ghoricarika ; forest anchorites; vanaprasthas are either sapatnika (accompanied by their wives) or apatnika (not so accompanied ) ; Sapatnika are of four sorts, Audumbara, Vairifica, Valakhilya and Phenapa; apatnika Vanaprasthas ; of four kinds of bhiksus, viz. kuticaka, bahadaka, harnsa and paramahathsa; sakama ( performed with desire of wordly gain) and niskama (not so performed) karma; pravytti and nivrtti; three kinds of ऋ गधन (मानन जनयक aw. ging, wg OTe 18? गौविन्द्स्वामी, the commentator of Baud. says ‹ वेलानसोपि वानप्रह्थ एव । शज्ञान्तरकरणं तु संन्यवहारारथम्‌ । विखनसा ऋषिणा पोक्तं वेलानसशाञ्जम्‌ । तत्र हि BEN वानप्रस्थस्योका मीष्मे पञ्चतपा इत्यादयः AAT’, ४ D. 14. 106 History of Dharmatastra Yogins and their subdivisions ; IL. the details of the §ramanaka rites of the vanaprastha ( khandas 1-4); duties of the forest hermit ; details of joining the order of sarhnyasins ( khandas 6-8 ); age for sarhnyasa (above seventy or when childless or widower); every day duties and observances of sathnyasins; about acamana and Sarthdhya; saluting (abhivadana ) of all relatives, male and female; holidays for study ( anadhyaya); bath and Brahmayajfia; rules about taking food ; forbidden and permitted food ; III. rules of conduct for grhastha ( khandas 1-3), rules of the road; purification of golden and other metallic things; purification of other things; about vanaprastha ; bhiksu; burial of a sathnyasin ; Nirayanabali on the death of a sathnyasin, tarpaya in the case of sarinyadsins with twelve names of Visnu, KeSava &c. and with water; anuloma and pratiloma ; the intermediate castes ; Vratyas, their origin ; name and means of subsistence ( khandas 11-15 ). The Vaikhanasadharmaprasna appears by its style and its contents to be a work of comparatively Jater date than the dharma- stitras of Gautama and Baudhayana. It is probably a recast of older matcrials. It contains the names of more mixed castes than the dharmasatras and than even some of the later smrtis. The present work secms to have been either written.or retouched by a devotee of Visnu. Faith in and devotion to Visnu or Narayana loom very — large here (1.5.5 narayana-parayanah, I. 7. 6 and 9; II. 4-5 bhaktya Visnuin dhyayan, III. 7. 3 Narayanapararh brahmeti grutah, LI. 9. 3 Visnoralayaparsve ). It speaks of the eight angas of Yoga (I. 10. 9 ), of the Ayurveda with its eight angas and of some treatise on evil spirits ( bhitatantra III. 12.7). It refers to the views of some in the word ‘eke’ (I. 7. 4. and II. 9. 10). It speaks of the Sramanaka fire (in I. 6. 2 and I. 7. 3-4). It does not allow sasimyasa to Ksatriyas (1. 1.11). Vikhanas is cited as an authority (II. 5.9 and TL. 15. 14 ). Bihler found a ms. of the Vaikhanasasitra, consisting of a grhya in seven prasnas, three prasnas of dharma (the same as described above >) and a fourth on pravaras. In the grhya a reference to Budhavara occurs ( १२. and ऽ. p. 9). Dr. Caland in his paper on Vaikhanasa-sitra holds that the Manusmrti borrows from Vaikhanasagrhya and that the author of the latter was saturated with the idiom of Dravidian languages ( vide Prof. Keith’s review in Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 1927, p. 623). Dr. Caland’s 16, Atré 107 view about Manu is entirely wrong as will appear from the section on Manu. Vide Th. Bloch in ^ प्रलाः das Grhya-und Dharmasitra der Vaikhanasa ’ ( Lipzig, 1896 ) Other Sutra Works on Dharma. It will be proper to say a few words about some other sitra works on dharma thar are only available in mss. or are to be reconstructed from quotations inthe digests. It is by no means to be supposed that these works that will be spoken of here were composed as early as those of Gautama, Apastamba and others or were composed before the extant Manu and Y4Ajiiavalkya. But as the chronology of all ancient works on dharma is somewhat in a nebulous state, it is best to treat here of all works written in the sutra style, even though in individual cases they may really belong to a later age than the works composed entirely in verse, They will be taken up in alphabetical order ( Sanskrit ) 16. Atri That Atri was an ancient writer on dharma follows froma refer ence to him in Manu ( III. 16 ) as holding the view that a dvijati taking as wife a Sidra woman became fallen (patita ). In the Deccan College collection there are several mss. ( Nos. 185-187 of A 1881-82) of the Atreyadharmasastra in nine adhyayas. They treat of gifts, prayers ( japya ) and tapas by which men are freed from all sins, Some of the chapters are in mixed prose and verse. The first three chapters are entirely in verse and some of the verses ( such as eka- ksararh param brahma ) occur inthe Manusmrti. The fourth opens with a long satra, which, in style, resembles later bhisyas and com- mentaries.*88 The 5th also is in verse and contains several verses found in Vasistha ( Dh. S. 28. 1, 4,6). The sixth speaks of the specially holy hymns and verses of the Veda. Some of the verses here are the same as Vasistha (28. ro-11). The seventh refers to secret prayascittas and the very first अप्य after the opening words speaks of several non-Aryan tribes such as the Sakas, Yavanas, Kim- 1 Se aera: 188 अव्बीणप्रायग्विलानां यमविषयनरकयातनानिश्व (1) पतितानां यदि कदाचिन्मानुष्यं मवति तदेतचिचह्नङ्कितशरीरा जायन्ते । तयथा । अनृतवादी खली बह्हा कुष्ठी &०. 189 अथातो रहस्यानि व्याख्यास्यामः । नटनतेकगायन-गान्धर्विक-श्वपाककारकवीशोत्कट- वीणाशाञ्ज-शक-यवन-काम्योज-बाङ्कीक-खदा-द्रविड-वङ्ग-पारश-बील्वातदीनां ( ! ) भुक्त्वा प्रतिगृद्च चञ्रीगमने सहभोजने THT रहस्यातिभकारो भकाश्यानि चरेत्‌ । "08 History of Dharmatistra bhojas, Balhikas, Khagas, Vangas and Paraga ( Persians?) &c. It is to be noted that the same sfitra ( with slight variations ) is quoted as Atri’s by Aparirka ( on Yaj. III. 266 p. 1123). The 7th and 8th chapters are in mixed prose and verse. The 9th is in verse and speaks of Yoga and its angas. It refers to the fact that Sisupala, son of Damaghosa, because in his hatred of Govinda he always thought of the latter, went to heaven. The same आप्त work is noticed in 1. 0, Cat., pp. 380-81, Nos. 1305 and 1306. There are several works styled Atri-smrti or sarhhita in the mss, One of them is in six chapters on secret prayaécittas, gifts, pitrmedha and acara ( vide I, 0. Cat., p. 381, No. 1308 ). There is another work styled Atrisarhhita printed in Jivananda’s collection ( part I. pp. 13-46 ). It contains about 400 verses and deals with the follow- ing topics :— importance of honouring guru, duties of four castes ; purifications of several malas ; virtues of Brahmanads such as वप्त, anasuya ; definition of isfa and parta, ten yamas and niyamas; im- portance of sons ; adopted sons, prayascittas for taking forbidden food or drink and for other transgressions, impurity on birth and death; candrayana, Krcra, Santapana; gifts; purifications from avoidable contacts with rajasvala &c.; Sraddha and the Brahmanas to be invited for it. In this work Atri is himself cited-as an authority. Other authors and works quoted are : Apastamba ( p. 3¢ ), Yama (p. 41), Vyasa (p. 24), Satkha (pp. 22, 35), Satatapa (p. 35). The Vedanta, Sankhya, Yoga, Puranas, Bhagavatah ( p. 45 ) are mentioned. It contains (on p. 14) the verse ‘ sadyah patati mansena’ which is found in Vasistha Dh. 5. (2. 27) with the words ‘athapyudaharanti’. There are other verses also which occur elsewhere e. g. ‘atha cenmantravid’ occurs in Vasistha 11. 20, ‘tryahath sayarh tryaharh pratah’((p. 23) is also Manu XI. 211. On '‘p. 26 occur the words ‘ atrapyudaharanti’ and so what follows is a quotation. On p. 32 there are three verses in another metre. Atri’s verse about aduption "५० is quoted as the first authority on adoption in the Dattakamimansa, He mentions the seven antyajas to be the washerman, the shoemaker, nafa, buruda, kaivarta 11 1 Se I a ah 190 eqqtiony कर्तव्यः TMM: सद्‌ । पिण्डोदुकक्रियाहेतोर्यसम(चस्मात्मयत्नृतः ॥ TF Pp, 17. 16, Atré 109 (fisherman ), meda, and 20770 ( 2. 29 ). He further says ७ that there is no question of untouchability in fairs, marriage seasons, in Vedic sacrifices and in all festivals, He says that Brahmanas from Magadha, Mathura and three other places are not honoured (at a Sraddha ) though as learned as Brhaspati."9* The work mentions the signs of the Zodiac, Kanya and the Scorpion ( p. 43 ), and hence was not composed before the first centuries of the Christian era. In Jivananda there isa Laghu-Atri (part I, pp. 1-12) in 6 chapters and about 120 verses, dealing with the means of being freed from sins ( such as pranayama, sacred formula, gifts &c. ), with purifications from impurity on death and birth, with gifts. It mentions Manu. In the fourth chapter there are about ten lines in prose, There are numerous verses that occur also in the Vasistha-dharmasitra, e. £. Vas. 26. 8-9 and 16-18 occur on p. 3; Vas. 28. 11-16 occur on pp. 4-5. It is difficult to say who the borrower is. There is a Vrddhatreyasmrti in Jivanafda (part I. pp. 47-59) in five chapters and about 140 verses. This closely resembles the Laghu-Atri-smrti described above. In the commencement both have the same six verses beginning with ‘bhagavan kena danena’ and the works have many verses in common. In the fourth chapter of both the same prose passages occur. Viévarapa on Yaj. (III. 257 ) quotes two verses from Atri on prayascitta which are found in none of the three works described above.*93 In the Mahabharata ( Anusasana 65. 1 ) Atri is credited with the view that those who make a gift of gold give (practically ) all 191 देवयात्राविवाहेषु THTHTAG ख । उत्सवेषु च सर्वेषु सपृषटास्पाशनं वियते ॥ P- 83 199 मागधो माधुरश्येव कापटः कीटकानुजो । पश्च विप्रा न पूज्यन्ते हृष्पतिसमा यदि ॥ (2, 45). What is कपट { Should we read कीकटाङ्गजो ( residents of the countries of raz and अङ्ग ) ? 193 The verses are भुक्त्वा तु fama भूतादीनामकामतः। प्राजापत्यं WBS Prost ल्वाहताशन : ॥ ण्डालवभिते चान्ने erg शनं विरोषत :। भुक्तवा रठू- मविज्ञाते ज्ञात्वा चान्ब्रायणं चरेत्‌ ॥ 710 History of Dharmasdstra objects. This bears a close resemblance to two verses that occur in Laghvatri ( Jivananda part I. p. 5 ) and Vrddhatri ( part I. p. 51 ).19 é 17. Usanas. That Uéganas wrote a work on politics follows from several cireym- stances. The Kautiliya quotes the Auéanasah seven times. ` It is almost certainly referring to a work. That work contained direc- tions on the administration of justice also, as Kautilya speaks of AuSanasa method of partition ( in allowing a tenth additional share to the eldest son, III. 6), as AuSanasah prescribed fines in cases where witnesses proved stupid &c. (III. 11) and fines for forcible seizure of jewels &c. (Ill. 17). The Mahabharata, Santiparva'9: (chap. 56, 29-30 and 57. 3 ) refers to a work on politics by Usanas and quotes three verses, the last being found in Sabha 55. 14. In other places also we have a Nitisistra ascribed to Bhargava ( Santi 210. 20 ) and certain verses are ascribed to him (Santi 57, 40-41 and 139, 70-71 ). Vide also AnuSasana 39, 8-9 and Sabha 62. 11-12. The Nitiprakasika of Janamejaya refers to a succession of teachers of politics from Brahma down to Janamejaya and says that Sukra was 194 सर्वान्‌ कामान्‌ प्रयच्छन्ति य प्रयच्छन्ति क ्विनम्‌। इत्येवं TTA: पि तामहसुतोबषीत्‌ ॥ अनुशासन 65. 1. The verses in the two Atris are argyqey प्रथमं सुवणं Tang सु्यसुताश्च गाव; | लोकाञ्चयस्तेन भवन्ति दसा यः काञ्चनं गां च Ae च दयात्‌ ॥ सर्वेश्रामेव द्‌।नानामेकजन्मानुगं कलम्‌ । हाटकक्षितिधेनूनां सप्तजन्मानुगं FST ॥ The first verse occurs in Vas. 28. 16, in Vanaparva 200. 28, in the Rajim plate of Tivaradeva ( Fleet's Gupta inscriptions No. 81). 195 श्लोको चोशनसा गीतौ पुरा तात महर्षिणा । तो निबोध महाराज त्वमेकाममना नृप ॥ उदयम्य शखमायान्तमपि वेदान्तगं रणे । निंगृह्णयात्स्वधर्मेण धर्मापेक्षी नर।धिपः॥ षिनश्य~ मानं at हि योमिरकषेत्स धर्मपित्‌ । न तेन adel स स्यान्मन्युस्तं मन्युमृच्छति ॥ शान्तिपव 56. 28-30; भगवानुशना चाह ॒श्छोकमन्र विशांपते । तदिंहेकमना राजन्‌ गद्तस्तं नियोध मे ॥ द्वाविमौ ग्रसते भूमिः सपो बिलशयानिव । र।जानं चाविरोद्धारं ATM चप्रवासिनम्‌ ॥ शान्ति 57. ४-3 ; श्लोकम्ायं ger गीतो भागेबेण महामना | आख्याते रामचरिते नृपतिं प्रति भारत ॥ राजानं प्रथमं विन्देत्‌ ततो भाय तती ` धनम्‌ । राजन्यसति लोकस्य कृतो भार्या कुतो धनम्‌ ॥ शान्ति ° 57. 40-41. नित्यः स्वार्थशाखेषु विन्यासश्यासुखोदयः । उशना चेव गाथे द्वे प्रहदुयाबवीरसुरा ॥ शान्ति» 139. 19. 17. Uéanas 111 one of those who abridged the enormous extent of rajagdstra.*96 The Mudraraksasa (I. p. 71 Telang’s ed. ) also speaks of AuSanasi Dandaniti. Visvaraipa (on ४३}. I. 307 ) asks the king to appoint ministers in accordance with the views propounded in the Sastras_ of Brhaspati and Usanas and quotes a long passage in prose from Brhas- pati in which the sastras of Manu, Brhaspati and USanas are joined together. This work on politics probably contained verses also. Medhatithi on Manu (7. 15 ) quotes two verses speaking of eight activities of a king.'9% So also on Manu 8. 50 Medhatithi cites from Usanas the words ‘ prakrtinam balarh raja,’ which are an Anustubh pada. This प्रप्त work on politics by Usanas has not yet been dis- covered. The Tandya-Mahabrahmana says that Kavya USsanas was. the purohita of the Asuras ( 7. 5. 20 ) In the Deccan College collection there are two mss. of an Auéa- nasa-dharmasastra in prose with a few verses, viz. No. 644 of Visrambag (i) and No. 191 of A 1881-82. The first contains only two folios ( 2 and 4 ) and the available portion begins in the midst of the 2nd chapter. In the second ms. also the first folio is wanting and there are gaps in the fourth chapter. It is noteworthy that the second folio of the second ms. begins just at the beginning of the 2nd folio of the first. The work is a brief one (8 folios ) in seven adhyayas. Their contents are:-—II. impurity on birth and death ; purification of certain things in certain ways such as with water, ashes &c.; III. the four varnas and the mixed castes such as Rathakara, Ambastha, Sata, Ugra, Magadha &c, the Vratyas; IV. no bodily injury to be done to Brihmana ; prayascittas for killing a Brahmana ora man of the other varnas and for other Mahipatakas, prayascitta for eating 196 बह्मा महेश्वरः स्कन्द्वेन्रः प्राचेतसो मनुः । वृहस्पतिश्च शुक्रश्च AAAI Ai तपाः ॥ वेदृन्यासश्च भगवान्‌ तथा गौररिरा मुनिः । एते हि राजशास्ञाणां प्रणेतारः परंतपाः | SATAN बह्मा THATS महामतिः । Taney Age शद्रः wea चाधवीत्‌ | It is further said that Skanda, Indra, Pricetasa Manu, Brhaspati, Sukra, Bharadvaja, Gaurasiras and Veda-Vydsa abridged respectively to 25000, 10000, 6000, 3000, i000, 700, 500 and 300 adhydyas and that Janamejaya abridged even the last. 1965 आदाने च विसमे च तथा प्रैषनिषेधयोः । पञ्चमे चार्थवचने व्यवह्यरस्य वेक्षणे ॥ दण्ड. शद॒भ्योः wa wetness नृपः | अश्टकम दिव याति राजा waa: ॥ These are quoted also by कुलक ०४ Manu VII, 154, A 118 History of Dharmatisira the flesh of certain animals and for eating certain plants like garlic, prayascitta for adultery; discussion whether a Brahmana could marry a Sudra woman; prayascittas for killing various beasts and birds ; four- teen vidyas ; ए, sraddhakalpa; what Brahmanas are pankti-pavana ; details of Sraddha, food and flesh at graddha; who are unfit to be invited at graddha; VI. what things a Brahmana could not sell ; VII. punishments for the Mahapatakas; what are pure things at all times. Some of the views of the Auganasa-dharmagastra are worth special notice. The son of a Brahmana, Ksatriya or Vaigya from a wife of the varna immediately next to it belonged to the caste of the father."97 No sin or punishment attached to one if one killed an 01010; armed Brahmana, The fourteen vidyas are said to be the six angas and the four Vedas, Mimathsa, Nyiya, dharmagastra and Purana."98 The work very often quotes the views of others with the words ‘eke’ ; for example it says ‘ the impurity on birth is ten nights for the parents of the child, but according to some only for the mother.”99 The son of a Brahmana from a $adra woman is called parasava, but according to some he is nisada. ‘The whole of the portion in the ms. about the mixed castes bears a very close resemblance to Baudha- yana ( Dh. ऽ, I. 9) except in a few particulars.2°° At the end of all chapters from the second ( except the third >) there are verses and also in the midst. There are verses introduced with the words ‘there isa Sloka on this point’ ( bhavati catra slokah ) or with the words ‘api codaharanti ’. ON णि कक 197 ब्राह्मणेन क्षत्रियायां जातो बाह्मण एव सः | chap. IIT folio 3 a. 198 चतुदेश वियस्थानानि पुनः षडङ्गाश्चत्वारो वेदा मीमांसा न्याय एव च! धर्मशाखं पुराणं च॑ विया द्येताश्चतदश ॥ „+ 1४ will be noticed that there is a éloka from षडङ्गा which is almost the same as रत}. I. 3. 199 दशर्न मातापितुभ्यः सूतकं मातस्त्यिके | folio 2a; compare ay, ध. सू. 14. 14 J ध्मातापिंतनोस्तम्मातुर्बा |" (and हरदत्त 8 comment thereon for various views ) ; भो. ध. सु, 1. 5. 105-109, where BaudhZyana’s own view is that both are impure for ten days, but according to some the mother and according to others the father has to observe impurity for ten days. 200 The ms. (Srd chap.)has तन्न सवर्णासु सवर्णा; । बह्यणेन क्षत्रिया ,.. सः । बैश्यायामम्ब्ठः । श्रद्ा्यां पारशवो निषाद्‌ इत्येके । क्षत्रियेण वेश्याया क्रियः शूद्राजामुमरः। eta eaten शूद्रेण देश्यायामायोगवः क्षत्रियायां क्षया बाह्ण्यां षण्डाः &०. 17. Usanas | 119 There are about 45 verses in the work, the 7th and last chapter being almost entirely in verse. Asthe mss. are corruptand full of gaps, it is often difficult to find out whether a particular passage is prose or verse. In several verses the words ‘Manur abravid’ occur and in one place ‘tan manor anusasanam’, The latter closely agrees with Manu. Several verses are common to Manu and Uéanas. The verse ‘ gurutalpe bhagah karyah’ ( Manu 9. 237 ) occurs in the ms. So also the verse ‘yena yena cidangena ’ occurs in both.22 The words of Manu ( ४. 78 ) ^ bale desantarasthe’ are expressly quoted with the words ‘Manur-aha’, There are many other verses which, though not cited expressly as from a particular author, are found in other ancient works. For example, the verse ‘ apah Suddha bhimi- gatah’ is Manu 5. 128 and Baud. Dh. S. I. 5.57. The half verse ‘karuhastah Sucir nityam’ is Manu §. 126 and Baud. Dh. S. I. 5. 48. The verse ‘ yadekaratrena karoti papam ’ occurs in Ap. Dh. S.(I. 9, 27.11) and Baud. Dh. 5. IL. 1. 42. The verse ‘tryaham pratas tryaham naktam’ 15 Manu XI. 211. It is a remarkable fact that some of the verses in this dharmasitra agree closely with the verses in the Usanas-smyti in verse, published by Jivananda, e. g. the verse ‘ dattva tu Vedanatyartham ` occurs on p. 525 भात्‌ पा verse ‘niman- tritastu. yo vipro adhvanarh sarhprapadyate’on p. 527. Even the prose passages bear a close resemblance to the versificd smpti on many points, e. g. the prose passages about the duration of the satisfaction of the Manes by the offerings of the flesh of various animals occur almost in the same words in the versified smpti of USanas(Jivananda, part I, p. 522). The Ausanasa-dharmasutra contains several passages in prose which are the same as some verses in Manu.?°3 The sitra eS SR A श) 201 The ms. reads दशस्थानानि दुण्डस्य चात्मनो ( तन्ममे। 1 }रनुश.सनमू । निषु वर्णेषु सामान्यं MoE भवेत्‌ ॥ ” while मनु (8.124)is दुरा ,,, दण्डस्य मनुः स्वायंमुवोधवीत्‌ । तरिषु वर्णेषु यानि स्युरक्षतो बाह्मणो थजेत्‌ ॥ | 202 The ms, reads चेन्‌ येन हि चण्डेन ( चिदङ्गेन t) रिस्याच्छेयांसमन्त्यजः 1 तदेव तस्य छेत्तव्यं छिन्ने निर्विषो भवेत्‌ N; in Ay (8. 279 ) the last 7808 1» तन्मनोः रनुश्चासनम्‌, | 203 The ms. has (in chap. 77) TT aie शुचिः । शुचयः फलपातने wernt परसवे वत्स । AME (मृग 1 ) हणे श्वा । ऊर्वे नामेः पुरषः । गीरमे्या पृष्ठतः। पुरस्ता. am: | शियः सर्वतः । हृद्यमासामाबं | Compare मनु I. 9, बो, ध, सु, 1. 8. and wits 3. 45, Fe De Te 114 History of Dharmasistra — in one place the divergent views of Vasistha,2 Harita tunaka, and Gautama on the question whether a Brahmana could marry a $Gdra woman. ‘The view of Vasistha(as quoted in the ms.) is that a Brahmiana could take to wife girls of all the four castes, but in the printed text of Vasistha (I. 24 )a Brahmana is allowed to marry girls of the three higher castes only. It is possible that the ancient reading of Vasistha’s text was ‘catasrah’ (as quoted in the Auganasa ) which was changed into ‘tisrah’. The passage reminds us of Manu III. 16 ( Sidravedi patatyatreh ), but the views ascribed to Saunaka and Gautama in the ms. differ from those ascribed to them in Manu. In another passage Vasistha’s views seem to be quoted.?°5 From quotations in Haradatta’s commentary on Gautamaand from the Smrticandrika it appears that they had access to a sutra work of Usganas dealing with all branches of dharma, viz., acara, vyavahara and prayascitta. For example, the Smrticandriké quotes prose passages of Usanas on anadhyaya (I. p. 59 ), on dantadhavana (I. p. 106 ) and Haradatta quotes a prose passage on anadhyaya (on Ap. Dh. S. I. 3. 10. 1) and a prose passage on the fine for a ksatriya abusing a Sddra (on Gau. Dh. S. 12. 10) and on Niyoga ( on Gau. Dh. S. 18.5). These passages are not found in the ms. But there are others that are found. For example, the Smriti- candrikaé quotes two passages, which occur in the mss.?° It et pie rn ^“ _ one 204 The ms, (chap. IV) has पतितो ब्रृषर्छपातिरित्याचक्षते। न पततीत्येके । बाह्मणस्य कस्पर्विहिनाश्वतखो-( खो १ )नुपूर्ेण भाया भवन्तीति alts आह । Tale न पत्नीतिं संशयः। TIAL पतीति (TAT गत्वा पततीति !) इ।त | जनन।तततीमि शोनकः। ATT त्यः पततीति गोतमः | The words of वसिष्ठ are “तिस्रो बाह्मणस्य भार्या वर्णानुपूरवेण दवे राजन्यस्य एकेका वेश्यशृद्रय)ः। URAC मन्त्रवजं ag’ । तथा न Pa! I. 24-26, It should be noted that one ms. of वृ सिह omits the words ‘autiy ,.. BAT. ४05 यस्तु qaalign धमेपर्नमुसेन Had सेवेत स दुष्यतीति वेवस्वतः (वै वसिष्ठः ! ) माजापत्येन शुष्यतीति ह्यरीतः (chap. 4); compare वसिष्ठ 12. 23. and Manu XI. 67 and 173. The reading वैवस्वत! also is explicable. Sqxqq may stand for मर्म, ४00 The passages are (तन्न गोमयोदुकर्भूमिभाजनभाण्डशोचं Baia? (chap. ४, about Sriddha) and ' श्वविद्वराहमाजारकुकूटनकृलद्ररजस्वलाशुद्धीमतोरश्च FATT faaean: (०मपनेतध्य। ) They occur in स्मतिचन्धरिका (III. 9. 409 and 2.41). 17, Udanas 118 appears therefore that the mss. either contain a portion only of the complete Auganasa-dharma-sitra or an independent sitra work’, The former alternative looks more probable. The foregoing discussion has shown that the आ work is later than the dharma- sutras of Gautama and Vasistha and also than the Manusmrti, which it probably knew in a very ancient version slightly differing from the extant one. In Jivananda’s collection of smrtis there is an Auganasa-dharma- S4stra in 5x verses (part I. pp. 497-501). It deals with mixed castes and their avocations, such as sita, migadha, cAndala, Svapaca, pulinda &c. The same work occurs in the Anandagrama collection, pp. 46-48. The Mit. (on Yaj. 1. 94 ) remarks that the means of livelihood for the mixed castes should be sought for in the works of Usanas and Manu.?°7 It is probably this smrti that is meant. Kulltika on Manu X. 49 says that the sale of hides and working on hides were the means of livelihood for Dhigvanas according to the Ausganasa. In the same collection ( part. 1. pp. 501-554) there is another smrti ascribed to USanas in 9 chapters and about 600 verses. It treats of Upanayana, daily observances like dcamana, Vedic study, occasions of anadhyaya, the dharmas of snataka ; Sraddha, proper Brahmanas 07 Sraddha, impurity on birth and death, rites after death, prayagcittas for the mortal sins and lesser sins. This smrti quotes Usanas himself, also Manu, Bhrgu ( Bhrgu- putra IIT), Prajapati and speaks of dharmasastras, Puranas, Mimarhsa, Vedanta, Paticaratras, 77311145 and Pasupatas. Numerous verses from the Manusmrti are found in it (€. g. Manu II. 42, 49, 50, 125 ) occur in the first chapter alone. There is a brief prose passage towards the end of the 9th chapter. It speaks of Kapalikas, Pasupatas and atheists together ( ए. 525 ) None of these smrtis in verse contains the passages in verse on vyavahara ascribed to Uganas that occur in the Mitaksara, Smrti- candrika and other works. The Mit. (on Yaj. III. 260 ) and Apararka (€, ६. p. 158, 192, 24९ ) contain prose passages ascribed to Usanas and the same works contain numerous verses ascribed to USanas most of which are not 207 एतेषां च वृत्तय ओशनसे मानवे च द्रटन्याः । मित. 416 History of Dharmaédstra 7 ind in the two smrtis in Jivananda. Some of the verses in pararka ascribed to Uganas are found in the AuSanasasmrti (९. g, Apararka p. 418 ‘kuryad-aharah Sraddham’ is Jivananda I. p. 521 ) In other cases the verses quoted from Uéanas in Apararka, though not quite identical, bear a very close resemblance (e. g. the four verses in Apararka p. 450 closely resemble Jivananda I. p. 525 and have some verses in common ) Among the views on Vyavahira quoted from (58025 are some interesting ones. It was he who said that ason was not bound to pay his father’s debt, if it was a fine or unpaid toll or what is not vyavaharika.2°® He holds that even blind, deaf or old men, women, minors could be witnesses in charges of sahasa ( Apararka p. 671 ) He is quoted also on ordeals, on svimipalavivada and on steya. A work styled Sukranitisara was edited by Oppert (Madras 1882) and by Jivananda (Cal. 1892 ) and translated by Benoy Kumar Sarkar in S.B. H. Series. That work is a very interesting one, but is comparatively of a late date. 18, Kanva and Kanva From the Ap. Dh. S. it appears that Kanva and Kanva were two distinct writers on dharma. In I. 6. 19. 2 Apastamba starts the question as to the persons, food at whose house was permitted. He states various views on that point and says that Kanva was of opinion that food may be taken at anybody’s house provided the latter offered it with a request ( I. 6. 19.°3 ) and that the opinion of Eka, Kunika, Kanva, Kutsa and Puskarasadi (1. 6. 19. 7 ) was that only that food that was offered by a pure and religious man should be partaken. In another place (I. 10. 28. 1) Apastamba gives it as the opinion of Kautsa, Harita, Kanva and Puskarasidi that a man became a thief if in any case whatever he appropriates another's belongings. The Kumbhakonam edition of Pandit Halasyanatha reads Kanva for Kanva. Kanva is quoted a few times in the Smrticandrika on Ahnika (daily duties ) and sriddha. One of these quotations is in prose CI. p. 97 ).2°? Haradatta in his commentary on Gautama cites 208 दण्डो वा दष्डशेषो वा Yew तच्छेषमेव वा। न दातभ्वं तु THOT यश्च न म्यवहार्किम्‌ ॥ निता, and RATS on याज्ञ. II, 47. 208 seat वेदेतिदासपुराणानीति TAT ATT तीरथनी्ठयोः TSM TTA AT | 18. Kawwa and Kayea 117 verses of Kanva in several places (€, g. Gautama Dh. S. 41. 3, 23. 4 and 11 ).**° The first verse bears a close resemblance to Manu XI. 180 and Baud. Dh. S. II. 1. 62. Kanva is quoted in the Acar- mayikha and the Sraddha-mayakha. The Mit. ( on Yaj. TIT. 58) quotes a verse of Kanva on the length of the stay of a samnyasin in a village or town. On Yaj. II. 260 the Mit. quotes a verse of Kanva stating the prayagcitta for a Brahmana having intercourse with the Ksatriya wife of his teacher. In the Madras Govt. Oriental Library there is a ms, of Kanva (vol. V, p. 1929 No, 2624 ). 19 Kasyapa and Kasyapa. Baudhayana ( Dh. S. I. 11. 20 ) cites a verse which contains the view of KaSyapa that a woman who is bought cannot be a patné and that she is not authorised to take part in religious ( daiva ) rites or rites for the Manes.?'* This verse is ascribed to Katyayana in the Smrticandrika (I. p.87 ). The Vanaparva quotes gathas of Kasyapa on forbearrance ( 29. 35-40 ). Whether Kagyapa and Kasyapa are two different writers of dharmasitras it is rather difficult to say. Probably they are identical. It appears that the dharmasitra of Kasyapa comprised all the usual topics of dharmasitras, such as daily duties, Sraddha, aSauca, prayagcitta. This stra has been quoted by all eminent writers from Visvaripa downwards. Viésvarapa quotes Kasyapa (in prose) on the prayagcitta for contact with candalas?'? and for killing a cow when the sinner is a Brahmana or a member of another caste.243 The Mit. ( on Yaj. III. 23 ) quotes a prose passage from Kasyapa on freedom from impurity on death.?"4 210 The verse is संवत्सरेण पतति पतितेन समाचरन्‌ | यानाशनासनेर्नित्यमित्याहुंबह्मव।दिनि : ॥ य कीता ASAT या नारी सा न पत्नी विधीयते । BT Sa न सा sa दासीं at कश्यपोषदीत्‌ ॥ | 212 जण्डुलन्वपाकपुल्कसादिसंकरे सम्यवधने वण्मासान्‌ गोमृश्रयावकाः TTBS पातभ्याः । एवं पमरतिमासबृदभ्या वुदधिरा परिवृत्तेः सूथस्य । विश्बद्प ० याज्ञ, 111. 257 “13 प्रायग्यित्तमकामावाप कामरूतेष्येके |... ब्राह्मणेभ्यो निवेदयित्वा सशिखं ar ST माजापश्यं रष्छरमा्रेत्‌ । जीणन्ते धेनुं तिलधेनुं दयात्‌ । ... तेन चर्मणा प्रावृतो मासं गोष्ठे वसेत्‌ । विश्वरूप ० याज्ञ. 711. ४69 9“ बालानामदुम्तजाताना त्रिरात्रेण शुद्धिः । 118 Eftetory of Dharmatastra Whe quotations in the Smpticandrika on ahnika and éraddha are all in verse. Haradatta on Gautama ( 22. 18 ) quotes a अप्र on the prayascitta for govadha,?*s which is also quoted by Visvardpa. Haradatta (on Gaut. 23. 26 ) quotes a very long sitra on the prayascitta for eating several thingsand doing several forbidden acts.?"6 Haradatta (on Ap. Dh. 5. II. 6. 13. 2 ) quotes several verses mentioning the seven kinds of punarbhis. The Haralata quotes a satra from Kagyapa on asgauca. Aparirka quotes several sitras and a few verses under both names KaSyapa and Kasyapa ( vide Yaj. I. 64, WI. 265, I, 222-25, Ill. 251, 288, 290, 292 for verses ). tn the Deccan College collection there are two mss. ( No. 200 of 1884-87 and No. 122 of A. 1881-82) which contain a Kasyapa- smrti in prose ( 4 folios having 8 lines on each side). It begins ‘athatah Kasyapiyan grhasthadharman vyakhyasyamah’. It deals with the duties of householders, with prayascittas for doing mischief to wells, dikes, ponds, temples and houses of Brahmanas, for killing a cow and other beasts and birds, with rules on mourning after death and impurity on birth, with prayascittas for eating garlic and other similar things, with the five mortal sins, with prayascittas when such portents as earthquakes, lightning flashes occur, or for such accidental occurrences as the breaking of the milk pot, with purifi- cation of vessels of wood, metals, with the visible physical sins of sins committed in previous lives, with the seven punarbbas. In this work some of the sitras quoted 25 Kasyapa’s in the commentaries are found, ( €. 2. the quotation No. 216 ‘ lasuna’ &c. above ). So also the verses about punarbhias of seven kinds quoted by Haradatta are found in the mss. In this smrti, Kasyapa 15 frequently cited as an authority. It is to be noted that Kasyapa is not mentioned by Y4j. as one of the dharmasastraprayojakas, though Parasara ( chap.I) mentions Kasyapa dharmah. The Smrticandrika (I. p. 7 ) and the Sarasvati- _vilasa (p. 13) speak of 18 Upasmrtis in which KaSyapa’s is included. 215 गां इत्वा तश्चमेणा परिवृतो मासं गेष्ठेशयस्षिषवणस्नायी नित्यं पश्चगष्याह्मरः | 816 लशुनपलाण्डुगजञ्जनकुकृटमक्षणे मेदःशुकपनेऽयाज्ययाजनेऽभोञयमोजनेऽभक्ष्यमक्षणेऽ गभ्यागमने चवं भायश्ित्तं॑बाह्मणेभ्यो निवेय agains पराण्यामुव्ध््यां दिि गत्वा यत्र भाम्यपशूनां शब्दो न श्रूयते AKAM भश्वार्य बघ्ठासनमास्तीय तत्मणीतेनं विधिना पुनःसंस्कारमद्ति । $0. Gargya 119 20. Gargya Visvarapa (on ४}. I. 4-5 ) quotes a verse of Vrddha-Yajfiavalkya in which Gargya is enumerated among the expounders of Dharma (dharmavaktarah ). He quotes two sitras, one from Gargya (on Yaj. I. 727*7 ) and the other from Vrddha-Gargya?"* (on Yaj. I. 195). Therefore it seems that a sitra work of Gargya on dharma did exist. The Mit. (९, g. on Yaj. III. 326 ), Apararka and the Smpticandrika quote several verses of Gargya on = 21011६4, Sriddha and prayascitta. Parasara also mentions Gargya among writers on dharma. Apararka contains (pp. 124, 190, 368, 544 ) verses from Garpya on topics of dharma. It seems that the two writers are identical. Apararka also quotes several verses from Gargya of astronomical import (e. £, p. §47 on the nomenclature of the months as Cattra in connection with the signs of the zodiac ). This was probably an independent work. Fragments of a Gargi sarhhita on astronomy and astrology have been recovered and it contains valuable historical information ( vide Kern’s preface to Brhat-sarhhita pp. 33-40 and Mr. Jayasval in JBORS. vol. 14, p. 397 ff). A Jyotir-Gargya and a Brhad-Gargya are quoted in the Smpticandrika. The Nityacarapradipa ( p. 20, BIS ) mentions Garga and Gargya separately as smrtikaras. 21. Cyavana The Mit., Aparirka and other works cite several sitras and some verses from Cyavana. Apararka quotes 9 very long prose passage from Cyavana (on ४३]. 1. 207 ) about the procedure of making the gift of a cow and about the mantras to be recited in that ceremony. The Mit. ( on Y4j. III. 30 ) and Apararka both cite a sitra of Cyavana on the prayascitta for coming in contact with a dog, a §vapaka, a corpse, smoke from a funeral pyre, wine, wine- vessel &c. Apararka cites prose passages of Cyavana on the prayascitta for killing a cow (on ४३]. II. 264-265 ), for touching, carrying or burning the corpse of one who commits suicide (on YAj. III. 292), on the method of the purification of houses, vessels, articles of food when touched by candalas ( on the same verse ). 22, Jatukarnya Visvartpa on ( Yaj. 1. 4-5 ) quotes a verse of Vrddha-Yajfia- valkya in which Jatakarna is mentioned as an expounder of. “17 पतिताः जियल्याज्या भतुवधमतिन्ञाणां ् । ५४ भेको काह BARR | 130 History of Dharmatieiva dharma.*7 The name is variously written as Jatukarni or Jatakarnya or as Jatukarna. The Smrticandrika quotes a passage from Angiras in which Jatakarnya is enumerated among writers of Upasmrtis. Visvardpa quotes prose passages from Jatukarnya a number of पाऽ. On Yaj. I. 1, he gives a sutra about ^ pratilomas” ; on Yaj.1.2 there is a sitra sying that a pupil should not all of a sudden put a question to his teacher in an assembly of people, on Yaj. I. 29 about a Ksatriya and Vaisya wearing an Upavita of hemp and wool when initiated for sacrifice, on Yaj. I. 37 as to the age when a Brahmana became a vritya, about the prohibition of marrying another wife of a different caste when one has already married a savarna wife (on Yaj. I. 79 ), about the time for sraddhas (on Yaj. I. 215). These quotations show that Jatakarnya composed a stra work on ३८३7४ and Sraddha, which was comparatively ancient. The quotations of Jatakarnya in Mitaksara Haradatta, Apararka, and later writers are in verse and so it appears that by that time the work had been lost or forgotten. Apararka ( p. 423 ) quotes a verse of Jatakarnya which refers to the zodiacal sign Virgo. This would place the verse Jatikarnya not very much earlier than the jrd or 4th century A. D. 23. Devala In the Mit. there are several prose passages quoted from Devala, €, g. on Yaj. I. 120 there is a satra on the dharmas of the अवा and the avocations open to him ;?7* on Yaj. I. 128 there is a satra dividing householders into Yayavara and Salina and describing each of them.???, In Apararka and the Smpticandrika there are several 219 सूयांसो धमेवक्तार उत्पन्ना माविनस्तथा। निधानं स्ैधमीणां वेद्‌ एव हि awa ANG: Toe गाम्बः पुलस्त्यः Tere: क्रतुः । मोधायनो जातुकर्णो Reais: पितामहः ॥ 230 ्रतिलोमास्तवम्तावसायिनः' } 'नाकस्मात्समवाये गुरं TST’, "दीक्षितौ चेद्वाजन्यवेश्यो छाणाविके खुयाताम्‌ ,; द्विगुणां गायश्नीमतिक्रम्य ब्राह्मणो aes: स्यात्‌" , ‘aaa हृतदारो नाम्यामिच्छेत्सन्तानस्यान्यगानित्वात्‌” , "अथ भाद्धमपरपक्षे सरवश्राविशेषात्‌ | THEA एव वा सामभ्यपपतिम्याम्‌, ४ तानि ब देवलोकतानि । शधो Rony neat कलटन्नादिपोषरणं कर्षणपडुपा- कममारोषहनपण्यध्यवह्मएचिन्रकमनृत्यगीतवेणुवीणामुरजृदेद्वादेनादीनि । 322 यथा हि दुेद्धः । द्विविधो Teed यायावरः शालीनश्च । तयोर्थायावरः प्रवरः याजना- भ्यापनमतिमहरिक्थरंबयवजनात्‌ | षरकमांबिद्ितः पेष्यचतुष्पद्गृहामधनधान्युको wronged arate इति। £8, Devala 121 prose quotations from Devala. On ४४}. Ill. 58 Apararka quotes a long prose passage on the rules of conduct for a yati; on Yaj. III. 109 Apararka cites a very long passage, in which Sankhya and Yoga are defined, reference is made to extensive Tantras on the two systems and a brief résumé is given of the Sankhya system, which greatly resembles the Tattvasamasa. On ४३]. III. 227 Apararka has a prose quotation from Devala about patitas. In the Smrti- candrika (I. p. 63 ) there is a lengthy passage from Devala on the daily duties of the brabmacarin, a sitra (I. p. $2 ) is quoted about brabmacarya for 48 years and in another place there is a prose passage about the wife’s duties.*?3 In the Mit., in Haradatta, Apararka and the Smrticandrika there are numerous quotations in verse from Devala on वत्वा, vyavahara, $raddha, prayascitta and other topics. That seems to have been an independent work. In the Anandagrama collection of smrtis there is a Devalasmrti in 90 verses dealing with purification and prayacittas for contact with Mleficchas. This appears to be a _ late compilation. Some of the verses contained therein are ascribed to other authors, e. g. verses 17-22 are ascribed to Apastamba by Apararka (on ४३}. III. p. 1200) and verses 30-31 are ascribed by the Mit. (on Y4j. III. 290 ) and Apararka to Visnu. The Mahabharata ascribes the view to Devala that in man there are three jyotts, viz. offspring, karma, and learning.?*+ Apararka and the Smrticandrika cite verses from Devala of partition, inheritance, on woman’s power over stridhana. These show that Devala, the jurist, flourished about the same time as the great jurists Brhaspati and Katyayana. 24. Paithinas! Though not enumerated in Yajiiavalkya, Paithinasi seems to have been a comparatively ancient satrakara on dharma. On Yaj. Ill. 26a Visvarfipa quotes a प्तप of Paithinasi on the prayascitta for killing acow. Dr. Jolly ( R.undS. p. 12 ) following Dr. Caland( Ahnencult &c. pp. 99, 109) thinks that Paithinasi belongs to the Atharva- veda as the prose quotations on sraddha agree with the ritual of ॐ परतिशचभूषा सहपमेजयां ततपयमानेपूजनम्‌ । ५५ श्रीणि ज्योतींषि पुष इति बे देषरोगवीत्‌। अपत्यं कर्म वथा ज अतः Ger परास्तः ॥ समाप १४. &, Me Dy 56, 122 History of Dharmatdetrda the Atharvans. The Mit. (on Yaj. I. 53) quotes a sitra of एण masi to the effect that a person should marry a girl who is beyond the third degree on the mother’s side and beyond the fifth on the father’s 546. On Y4j. ITI. 17 the Mit. quotes two sitras relating to impurity on death.7© The Smpticandrika, Apararka, Haradatta and other writers quote numerous sitras of Paithinasi. The Smrti- candrika has a prose quotation on the duties of women.?27 In another place the Smrticandrika ( II. p. 263 ) cites a sitra on partition.29® Apararka (p. 112) quotes two verses of Paithinasi recommending the practice of safi to women of all castes except Brahmana women. Apararka (p. 239) quotes a sutra saying that the food of astrologers, bell-makers and gramakutas is poison.??9 Apararka quotes (on p. 744) a sutra of Sankha-Likhita and Paithinasi about inheritance to a deceased sonless man.?}° Apararka quotes another important prose passage?>' “‘the wealth of (a heirless ) srotriya goes to the parisad and not to the king, the king should not appropriate the wealth of temples and guilds, deposits and the wealth of minors and women.” Then the sutra quotcs a verse on the samc topic, which seems to refer to Manu 9..1941n the word ‘of sixfold origin ’ (sadagama). Another sitra quoted by Apararka (p. 754) says ‘when an appoint- ed daughter dies, her husband does not take her wealth ; if she be issueless, her mother or mother-in-law should receive it.’ Aparirka quotes a verse of Paijhinasi ( p.921 ) ‘at the time of marriage, tamincs, sacrifices, fairs and pilgrimages there is no impurity due to birth or death.’ 225 Saar मात्रत; पञ्वातीत्य चर Aaa इति च पेदीनसिना &० 226 नित्यानि पिनिवसरन्‌ येतानवर्ज USI चेक । साविन्या चाज weer `मदक्षिणं रत्वा सूर्यं MITA | ४7 जिय) गृहदेवतास्तासां न शोच न क्रतं नोपवासः । पतिशुश्रूषयेव जियो गच्छन्ति परमं गतिम्‌ ॥ स्मतिच ° IL. p. 252 228 पेतके. विभज्यमाने ara श्रातणां समो विभागः ४29 सावत्सर्किघाण्टिकम्मापकुटान्न विषम्‌ । , The word प्रामकरट ( a village officer ) is well known from inscriptions, 280 अपुत्रस्य स्वयांतस्य भ्रातगामि धनं तदभावे मातापितरौ wat पत्नी वा ज्येष्ठा । . 231 agama वा aera न राजगामि । न हरये राज्ञा देवतागणस्स्थितं न निक्षेपो. पनिधिक्रियाक्रमागतं न बाटल्ञीधनानि । एव॑ त्याह । नं हार्यं खीधन राज्ञा तथा बाल- धनानि च । Atal: षडागमं वित्तं बालानां Gas घनम्‌ ॥१, This whole passage is ascribed to शद्ध in वि, र्‌, 2. 698. 85. Budha 123 25, Budha This sitrakara is not mentioned by Y4j. nor by Parasara, He is very rarely cited, Apararka on रत्र. 1. 4-5, Kalpataru ( quoted in Vira-mitrodaya, Paribhasa p. 16 ), Hemadri,?32 Jimuta-vahana’s Kalaviveka are probably the earliest writers to mention him. In the Deccan College Collection there are two mss. of a Budha-dharma- sastra in prose ( No. 507 of 1881-82 and No. 145 of 1895-1902, 2 01105). The work is very brief*}3 and speaks of upanayana, marriage, eight forms of marriage, the sarhskaras from garbhadhana to Upanayana, the five daily great yajias, $Sriddha, pakayajjias, haviryajiias, somay4ga, the means of subsistence for a Brahmana, the duties of Vaisyas and Sadras, the orders of forest hermits and sannydsins, removal of thorns by the king, administration of justice, king’s duties. The work does not produce the impression of being early. It is in the nature of a summary of larger works on dharma. All quota- tions in Hemadri cited from Budha are not found in the mss, an 26. Brhaspati That Brhaspati was an ancient teacher of Arthasastra follows from the Kautiliya, wherein the Barhaspatyas are cited six times. In the Mahabharata (Santi, chap. 59. 80-85) Brhaspati is said to have com- pressed into 3000 chapters the work on dharma, artha and kima composed by Brahma. The Vanaparva ( 32. 61 ) speaks of Brhaspati-niti, The Mahabharata. several times cites verses ( ९04 or Slokas)) said to have been sung by Brhaspati23+ ( vide Santi. 23. 25, 56. 38-39, 57. 6-7 ). Vide GY रीरि 232 चतुवेगे ° (दानखण्ड 7. 527) says “अादिशब्दाच्च युधदेवलसोमप्रजापतिवृद्शातातप- पेदीनसिकछागलेयख्यवनमरीचिवत्सपारस्करपुलस्त्यपुलहकरतुऋष्यशृह्गान्रेयाणां WSU . 233 The Budha stra opens as follows ;--अथातो sere व्याख्याश्यामः। ्रेयोभ्यदयसाधनो धमः । MTA बह्मणो वसन्त आत्मानमुपनयेत्‌ । एकादशे AR मीष्मे ' द्वादशे वेश्यो वषि | मेखलाजिनदण्डकमण्डलूपवीतानि धारयेत्‌ । &०. हेमाद्रि ( परिशेष, काल, ४ 309 ) quotes this as Budha’s from स्मृति- M viet निगिरति सपो बिलशयाभिष । राजानं चाविरोद्धारं बह्मणं चाप्रवासिनम्‌ ॥ शान्ति. 28.15. This verse ( with the reading हवाविमो aaa भृमिः सर्पो &९.) is asoribed by शान्तिपर्व 57. 3. to 89788 ; vide note 195 above. Tee yf ph | Fistory of Dharmatistra also Santi. 58. 13-16, 69. 23-24. The Anuéasana (39. 10-11) speaks of the ArthasAstra composed by Brhaspatiand others. In some of these places there are distinct references to a sastra or mata of Brhaspati and sections of his work are referred to (as e.g. rajadhikara). The Santic parva (170. 12) describes how a king could, according to Brhaspati’s views, secure his goal in four ways.?35 In the Vanaparva (150.29) men are said to be upheld by the mayas proclaimed by Brhaspati and Uganas. Vide also Sabha 50. 9, 55. 6, 73. 7-8, Udyoga 33. 71-725 55. 66. The Kamasitra repeats the tradition that Brahma com- posed a work in one hundred thousand chapters on dharma, artha and kama and that Brhaspati dealt with a portion of that work, viz. on artha.236 Vide note 196 above. ASvaghoga ( Buddhacarita I. 46 ) speaks of the rajagastra of Sukra and Brhaspati. According to the Arthas4stra of Kautilya some of the special views of Brhaspati’s school were that there were only two vidyas for kings viz. varta and dandaniti and that the council of ministers should comprise 16 members. According to Kamandaka and the Paficatantra (II. 41 ) ‘aviSvasa’ was the sheet- anchor of royal policy according to Brhaspati. The YaSastilaka (p.13) says that the niti of Brhaspati had no place for @©०45.>7 The com- mentary on the Nitivakyamrta gives the first verse of Brhaspati.237@ Visvaripa contains several prose quotations which from their context must have been taken from Brhaspati about the qualifications of a sena- pati, pratihara, dita, &c. It is somewhat strange that in this quotation the mantrin is required to be deeply conversant with the Sastras of Manu, Brhaspati and USanas. For similar prose quotations, vide शाखे च श्लोको निगदितः पुरा । ,.. क्षममाणं AT नित्यं नाचः परिभवेज्जनः । इस्ति- यन्ता गजस्यव शिर एवारषश्चति ॥ शान्त 56. 98-39; मरुत्तेन हि राज्ञा च गीतः श्लोकः पुरातनः । राजाधिकारे राजेन्दर बृहस्पतिमते पुरा ॥ गरोरप्यवारिप्तस्य ायीकार्य- मजानतः | उत्यथप्रतिपननस्य दण्डो भवति शाश्वतः ॥ शान्ति 57. 6-7. ४55 चतुर्विधा छयथंसिदिबहृस्पतिमते यथा । पारम्पर्यं तथा देवं काम्य Fone प्रभो ॥ शान्ति ® 170, 18. 86 प्रजापतिः प्रजाः सृष्टा तासां स्थितिनि्न्धन Rarer साधनमष्यायानां waage- णामे Te । तत्येकदेशिकं मनुः स्वायम्भुवो धर्माधिकारके gue जकार । बृहृस्पतिरेथोधिकारिकिम्‌ । 5-7 ST शहस्पतिनतिय इवादेवमातकाः | 975 वाका कृयेन मनसा मणम्य्गिरसं मुनिम्‌ । निशां पवश्यामि भृपतीनां सुखावहम्‌ ॥ 26. Brhaspatt me Visvaripa on Yaj. 1, 323, H. 154. That Brhaspati also wrote a 8809 work on vyavahara and other topics of dharma follows from the quotations contained in Visvariipa and Haradatta. For example, Viévardpa cites a prose passage from Brhaspati (on Yaj. IJ. 38) about the duty of the king to restore property stolen from his subjects if he could not recover it from the thief, about the rising scale of the rates of interest according to the castes, about the debts of a deceased man being payable by those who took his wealth, by his wife or by ` his son, about a surety being made to pay when the principal died, about the illegitimate son of a Sidra getting a share on his father's death and about his taking the whole estate with the king’s per- mission if there were no legitimate issue of the Sidra.73* Haradatta on Gautama 22. 18 quotes a prose passsage from Brhaspati on the prayascitta for killing acow. These quotations establish that Brhas- pati wrote a sitra work on dharma also ( 1. €. at least on vyavehara and prayascitta). ViSvaripa also quotes a few verses from Brhaspati on vyavahara and priyascitta and in one place at least indicates that the verse he attributes to Brhaspati occurred in the same work in which a prose passage quoted by him occurred.?39 From this it follows that the sitra work of Brhaspati on dharma contained verses also in Visvardpa’s time. Whether the two works on arthasastra and dharma were composed by the same Brhaspati cannot be determined. It looks probable that they were composed by different authors. Y4j. (I. 4-5) mentions Brhaspati among the expounders of dharma. He is probably referring to the sitra work on dharma disclosed by quotations from Visvarapa 238 तथा चं बुहृष्पतिः ATA त सर्वेभ्योन्विष्यापणीयम्‌। अल मे स्वकोशाहा | SAAT TT किष्बिषी स्यात्‌ । ` ०० याज्ञ. 11. 38; तथा च युदृ्तिः--पादोषयात्‌ कमेणे- तरेषाम्‌-इति ON यान्न. 77. 39; बुहृस्पतिश्य धनखीहारिपुश्राणां gine aia माधमण्यं तद्भावे erat रिक्थमाजाम्‌ । ० याज्ञ. 7.47; तथा च बहस्पतिः उपस्थाप्य विपत्तावुपस्थाप्यस्य पुनः प्तिभर्वाण्यः इति । ०० याज्ञ. 77.55; तथा च ब॒हस्पतिः-“कामतश्य शरू्रावरोधजस्य MTT समानमा प्रेते पितरि ददुः शश्र" TRY : इति । OD याज्ञ. 11. 138. 239 on याज्ञ. III. 262 विन्बद्धपं says । SPAT तु द्वादशाहेन, गोषाती तस्मा्याषाष्म- मुच्यते | erent भवेन्न क्षीरदष्यशनोपि वा ॥' तथेदुमन्यत्‌ "गायश्या aya &o. ( two verses )? | तथेदं THAT ‘STENT पथ्चैगव्याहृरः दूरान्न वा याब SE गोष्ठे वसेत्‌ । ... MOTT भोजयित्वा शुष्येदित्याह बृहस्पतिः ' इति। The words TAT TATA: ate attributed to TEENA by हदल also, we Fitstory of Dharmastetre In the Mit, and other commentaties and nibandhas over sevey hundred verses on vyavahira ‘and a few hundred more on Acara and , prayascitta are cited from Brhaspati. That seems to have been an independent work composed between 300 and 500 A. D., which will be discussed later on ( vide sec. 37 ). In Jivananda’s collection ( part I. pp. 644-651 ) and in the Anandaérama collection there is a Brhaspatismrti in 80 verses in which Brhaspati is represented as instructing Indra about gifts, Several mss. in the Deccan College Collection contain this smrti, but in an abridged form in 70 and 49 verses( No 130 of 1884-86 and No 147 of 1895-1902 ). Vide also I. O. cat. p. 386 No. 1324, 1325- 1328. Apararka quotes (7 1225 ) verse 7 of this smrti (in verse ) and the Danaratnakara quotes verses 6 and 7 as from Dana-Brhaspati. The Barhaspatya Arthagastra edited by Dr. F. W. Thomas (Lah&te, 1921 ) is a later work and does not deserve more than a passing notice. In six chapters it deals with the conduct, duties, studies of kings, omens, rules of policy &c 27, Bharadvaja and Bharadvaja There is a Srauta ऽता and a Grhya sitra attributed to Bharadvaja. The Ms. of the grauta in the Bombay University Library contains nine prasnas and a portion of the roth and begins ‘darfapaurnamasau vyakhyasyamah’. It quotes Alekhana and Aémarathya frequently. The Grhya has been edited by J. W. Salomons. It appears from quotations in Visvaripa and other early commentators that a sitra work on dharma attributed to Bharadvaja or Bharadvaja was in existence. The forms Bharadvaja and Bharadvaja probably refer tothe same work. On Yaj. (I. 15) Vigvarapa quotes a prose passage from Bharadvaja prohibiting the learning of mleccha tongues and calling upon the preceptor to teach his pupil pure words, observance of Sarhdhya and the kindling of fire ;7398 on Yaj. I. 32 Bharadvaja is quoted as prescribing a penance for even thinking of causing harm to beings;?39b on Yaj.1.185 a lengthy satra of Bharadvaja on the purification of certain things is quoted, wherein is cited the view of some that boys are purified by a mere bath ४39 तथा च मारदाजः- न म्टेच्छभा्षां erat । म्लेच्छो इ वा एष यद्पशष्द्‌ इति विक्ञा- यते । तस्माच्छिष्यमुपनीय साधुशब्दा्‌ शिक्षयेत्‌ सन्ध्योपासनाभ्रन्धनानि । $59b तथा ख माद्राज ;-- "मनसा पराणिहतायां निदंपदामावतंयेतु" बति । ` $7. Bharadviija and Bhtradetja ant when touched by antyajas; 74° on Yaj. I. 236 ४ prose passage of Bharadvaja forbids in graddhas the use of certain cereals as food.?4 Aparirka quotes a long prose passage (p. 1155) from Bharadvaja in connection with the prayascitta for cessation of grhya fires for various periods.: In the Smeticandrika, in Haradatta and in several other works verses of Bharadvaja are quoted, which appear to be taken from a smyti in verse. That Bharadvaja was an ancient writer on arthaéastra ‘follows from the Kautiliya, wherein the views of Bharadvaja are cited seven times and of Kaninka Bharadvaja once. Some of the views of Bha- radvaja as described in the Kautiliya are that a king should choose his ministers from amongst his fellow-students, that the king should consider his line of policy alone in secret, that the princes should be punished secretly when they manifest no love for the king their father, that the minister should set one prince against another when the king is on his death-bed, that when calamities befall the king and the minister, the former is the lesser of two evils, that one should bow down before the strong. This last view occurs in the Mahabharata in the same words.?42? The Santiparva (chap. 140) contains a dialogue between Bharadvaja and king Satrufijaya of Sauvira in which danda is said to be the most pre-eminent among the expedients. The same parva (chap. 58. 3) mentions Bharadvaja in a list of writers on rajasastra. The Yasastilaka243 (4th Asvasa p. 100, Nirnayasigara ed.) quotes two verses of Bhiradvaja from his trea- tise on the topic of the six guyas. This shows that Bharadvaja’s work on politics was available in the roth century and contained verses (probably intermixed with prose). 0 यत्तु CE ay शौचं शयनासनकटपरस्तरयानपस्तरगण्डोपधानकशिपुकम्यलकगृहषा- न्यमणिफलकशिलासदहृखरेम्णाभनिस्तानां च कष्टानां PISS कुमाराणामन्यन्न प्रक्चणादन्त्यस्पर्शने स्नानं कमाराणमेके' इति । Ml म।षाढकीमुद्रव्जं Raat न द्यात्‌~ इति भरद्राजः 9५ कौटिल्य says (12. 1) इन्द्रश्य हि स प्रणमति यो बलीयसो नमति-इति भारद्वाज शौन्तिपवं 61. 11. has न्द्राय स प्रणमते नमते यो बलीयसे I? . ४43 अवस्षेपेण हि सतामसतां sage च । तथा सत्वेष्वमिद्रोहादधर्मस्य च करणात्‌ ॥ विमाननाच्चं मान्यानां विश्वस्तानां चं घ।तनात्‌ । प्रजानां जायते ` छोपो मृपतेश्चायुष॑ः क्षयः ॥ इति कथमिदूमभाषत TTT मारद्राजः ॥ | 198 History of Dharmat&sira ` The Parasara~Madhaviya (vol. III. p. 231) quotes a verse of Bharadvaja which divides a pledge into four varieties. A few quota- .fions from Bharadvaja on matters of vyavahara are cited in other works. For example, the Sarasvati-vilasa cites a verse of Bharad- vaja that a compromise, an exchange and a partition, if fair and equal, could be annulled only for ten days, but could be annulled till the gth year, if unfair.44 It appears that the verses of Bharadvaja on vyavahara are taken from a work other than the aneient work on politics, 28. Satatapa Satatapa is enumerated among the expounders of dharma by Y3j. (1, 4-5 ) and by Paragara. ViSwaripa, Haradatta and Apararka quote several prose passages of Satatapa on prayascitta. Visvartpa ( on Yaj. HI. 236 ) tells us that Satatapa spoke of only eight upapatakas and that without dealing with Sriddha as a principal topic he spoke of some of the subsidiary details of Sraddha.245 The latter passage quoted from Satatapa is a half verse. So Visvardpa had a prose work of Satitapa before him, mixed with verses. Haradatta on Gaut. (Dh. S. 22. 18 ) quotes a prose passage of Satatapa about the penance for killing a cow. In the Mit., the Smrticandrika and other works numerous verses of Satatapa are quoted on acara and ériddha. This wotk of Satatapa in verse is most probably a different one from the sutra work. It appears that there are several smrtis ascribed to Satatapa. In Jivananda’s collection there is a smrti of Satitapa called Karmavipaka in six chapters and about 231 verses. Its contents are : certain diseases are concomitants of certain sins; gifts of land, cows &c.; eulogy of Brahmanas; penances for killing a Brahmana, a cow &c., penancesfor drinking wine, for incest and forbidden sexual intercourse of various sorts, for thefts; rites for those who meet with violent and accidental death. The last verse declares that the Smrti was promulgated by Satatapa to his pupil Sarabhanga. It is a late production. It prescribes the reading of the Harivarhsa ( II. 30 ) as a penance for infanticide. 24८ स्न्धित्य परिवृत्तश्च बिभागश्च समा यदि । आदशाहं मिवत विषमे भववत्सरात्‌ । SAAS pp. 314, 320, 3 यथा शातातपः MANTRAS तद्रत।भ्गुणानाह-“विना ज्ञोपर्वीतिन Tey TATE इति | easy on याष. I. 4-5. 28. Satdtava 129 No. 1362 of the J. 0. catalogue (and cat. of Madras Govt. mss. ‘vol. V. pp. 1994-96 ) is a Satatapa-smrti in twelve chapters dealing with prayascittas for mahapatakas, prayascittas fot injuries to various beings, marriage, vaiSvadeva, Sraddha, pitrtarpana, rules about taking one’s dinner, prayascitta for dogbites and similar matters; impurity on birth and death, rules of conduct (cara ). No. 1361 of the I.O. catalogue is a treatise in mixed prose and verse on prayascittas for the Mahapatakas and Upapatakas. Several verses of Manu (such as IIT. 8, 11, 171 ) occur therein. 1४ contains 139 verses. In Mitra’s Notices (II. p. 4) there is a ms. called Karmavipaka in 87 chapters and 2376 verses, of which the work in Jivananda’s collection seems to be a part or abridgment. Apararka in several places quotes the views of Satatapa immediately followed by quotations from Vrddha-Satatapa or vice versg ( €. g. on ५३}. I. 190, on III. 292 p. 1195 and p. 1201 ) No. 205 of A. 1882-83 of the Deccan College Collection is a Vrddha-Satitapa smrti in 64 verses on prayascittas for doing various things, on Sraddha, on washing the teeth. I. O. Cat. No. 1360 p. 398 is a Vrddha-Sitatapa-smrti in 97 verses on defilement and urifications. The Anandasrama collection contains a Vrddha- Satatapa smrti in 68 verses ( pp. 232-235 ) on prayacittas, purification from various defilements and other miscellaneous matters. There are two prose passages therein. Hemadri mentions a Vrddha-Satatapa along with several other smrtikaras ( vide note 232 above). In the Vyavaharamatrka of Jimutavahana ( p. 305 ) Vrddha-Satatapa is cited on the six kinds of uttara (defendants reply 2.२4 ‘This shows that Vyrddha-Satatapa wrote on Vyavahara also. The Mit. (on Yaj. III. 290 ) cites a Brhat-Satatapa. Hemadri ( III. 1. 801 ) speaks of a bhagyakara of Vrddha-Satatapa. 29. Sumantu. From Visvaripa, Haradatta and Apararka it follows that Sumantu composed a sitra work on dharma, particularly on acara and prayas- citta. Visvarapa quotes prose passages from Sumantu on upapatakas,*47 ead बृद्शातातपवचनं तु बहुक्ञजीणेरुतनिषन्धेस्माभिदृष्टं न TTT । „7 एष सुमन्तु; ' शीरजतगोस्तेन्यं गोभ्य गमनं नाशकं Brags erat ere परिषि- चिताबकी्णीता मतिडूपकृवातिम्यप्युपपातकानि › इति । दिन्बडप ०० याज्ञ, HL. 290-856, He 2, IZ. 130 History of Dharmatastra on prayascitta for Brahmana-murder (on शवर. III. 237), for drink- ing wine ( on ४३]. III. 250 ), for theft of gold (on Yaj. III 252), for incest (on ४2}. III. 253-54), for killing a cow and about atatayin (on Yaj. III. 261 ). In one quotation from Sumantu cited by Visvarapa the views of acaryas and of Angirasa are mentioned.*4® The prayaé- cittas for Brahmana-murder and for killing a cow contained in Visvarapa occur in Haradatta ( on Gaut. 22. 13 and 18). Most of the quotations cited by Visvaripa occur in Aparirka also. The Haralata ( p. 68 ) quotes sitras of Sumantu on asauca. One well- known sutra of Sumantu is ^ no prayasgcitta ( or blame ) is incurred by killing an Atatayin, except cows and brahmanas’.*49 Apararka quotes sutras from Sumantu condemning marriage with maternal uncle’s or paternal aunt’s daughter and recommending the gbandon- ment of a young wife in certain circumstances.?5° In the Sarasvati- vilasa a prose passage of Sumantu is cited on the seven constituents of 2] ४३.०४०. These quotations from Visvaripa and othersestablish that a prose work on dharma by Sumantu existed early enough. It appears however that the work was not a very ancient one. Neither Yajnavalkya nor Parasara mentions Sumantu among the propounders of dharma. Onthe other hand the name of Sumantu is an ancient one. In the Bhagavatapurana ( XII. 6. 75 and 7.1). Sumantu is said to have been a pupil of Jaimini and a promulgator of the Atha- tvaveda. Vide Santiparva 341. 19 for Sumantu and other pupils of Vyasa. In the daily tarpaya the name of Sumantu occurs along with Jaimini, Vaisampayana, Paila. a ee 248 न बराह्मणस्य पतनमिष्छन्त्याचायोः किल्विष्युपगतः पातभ्य इत्याङ्गिरसः--इति । विश्वद्प On याज्ञ. ILI. 297, 249 विन्वद्धप ०४ याज्ञ. IIL. 262 quotes it as (नाततायिवधे प्रायगयित्तमन्यन्न गोधाह्मणेभ्यः,” whilethe मिता, ० याज्ञ, IT, 21 quotes it as 6 नाततायिवधे धोषोभ्यश्र गोः ब्राह्मणात्‌ ’. the स्म्रतिमज्ञसी of गोषिन्द्राज ( 1, 0, ms. No 1736) has ‘gzrq- तायिन्यदोषोऽन्यन्र TATTIT. 250 मातक्कसतां पेतृष्वसेयीं BTA च परिणीय चन्द्रायण चरेत्‌ परित्यज्येनां बिम्‌- मात्‌ | अपरां ०८ याज्ञ. 1. 53; “न्या दुत्सितान्यजातिकर्मशीला भ्याभ्युपटता षरि णीता यथक्षतयोनिः स्वात्ास्यकतष्य!' अपरा OD ayer, 1. 65 2500 अतः सप्ताङ्गानि सदेथा संगस्याणीस्याह सुमन्तुः | स्वाम्यमात्मना VT । AANA संमानेन । वणोन्‌ रजनन । जनान्‌ वणधमरशनेन । बुर धनधान्यादिसिमरदभ्या | Pay areas । .दृ्डे स्वधर्मेण । ननं प्त्यमाषणेन । इति ।' सरस्वती ° P 46. MY 9 "नो कडि किक @ == = £9. Sumantu 181 Numerous verses on dharma are also cited from Sumantu by Apararka, the Smrticandrika and other works. This may probably be a different work from the sitra work of Sumantu. In one verse of Sumantu ( Apararka on Yaj. I. 223 ) occur the words ‘ Sankha- sya vacanath yatha’ and in another ( Apararka on Yaj. I, 217-218 ) the Kany4 sign of the zodiac is referred to. It is remarkable that the Mit. and Aparirka contain no verses of Sumantu on vyavahara. The Sarasvati-vilisais rich in quotations from Sumantu on vyavahara. A compromise, exchange or partition, if fair, could be annulled up to the tenth day, but if unfair up to the 9th year’ ( vide note 244 above ). ‘If even as much as a masa went from the buyer to the seller, that would support the sale of the land (sold) just as a small dose of poison permeates the whole body and when no purchase-money is paid or only a portion is paid, then the purchase is called avakraya and is liable to be set aside if the price is not paid in ( good time ).’ Sumantu prescribes a fine for selling and purchasing land without the consent of the neigh- bouring members of the family and says that in case of pre-emption, the neighbours on the east are preferred to all and those on the south come last. *52 Sumantu defines a mortgage by conditional sale ( called ‘uktalabhakraya ° ) and a sale for arrears of revenue by the king’s orders ( called ajfiakraya ).253 30. The Smrtis The word smrti is used in two senses. It is applied to all ancient orthodox non-Vedic works such as Pinini’s grammar, to the Srauta, grhya and dharma sitras, to the Mahabharata, to Manu, Yajiavalkya and others. In a narrower sense smrti and dharma- 251 माषमान्रमपि द्रष्य करेतुर्विक्रेतरि स्थितम्‌ । sala सकलां ममि कायमह्पं विष यथा ॥ अधदत्तमदत्तं तु क्रयमाहुरवक्रयम्‌ | अवक्रयो निवर्तेत यदि कले न दीयते ॥ सरस्वती ° P. 321. 992 ज्ञात्यादीनननुक्ञाण्य संमीपस्थानतन्द्रिनाम्‌ । कयविक्रयकतारो तत्संमं दण्डमर्हतः ॥ सरस्वती ° P. 922; “चतुःसामन्तसांनिष्ये प्राची दिग्यटवत्तरा । उदीची च प्रतीची च TTT तु दक्षिणा ॥ ४. 328. ५५० Sey द्रन्यमादाय कले दास्यामि ते कित्‌ । नो चेन्मलमिदं त्यक्तं केद्‌ःरस्येति यः क्रयः ॥ स THIN इत्युक्त उक्तक टेण्यनपणात्‌ ॥ सरस्वती ° P. 324; मूल्यस्य पाद्मर्धं वा मूल्यमाज्ञाक्रये स्थितम्‌ । मूल्यं तदातमसिलं gen at समाश्रयात्‌ ॥ भा श्रिभोगात्‌ ततः केतुः परतो इृढतामियात्‌ । ४. 828. 183 History of Dharmatastra 2504 are synonyms, as Manu says.?5+ The word smrti occurs in Taittirilya Aranyaka (I. 2). Gautama (Dh. S. 1. 2) and Vasistha (Dh. 5.1. 4) speak of smrti as one of the sources of dharma. Ap. Dh. S. (II. 6. 15. 25 >) employs the word smrti and has in view Gautama’s dharmasitra according to Haradatta. In the Parva- mimarhsa-sitra the word smrti occurs (vide VI. 8. 23 and XII. 4. 42 ).255 In the Vedantastitras the word smrti is employed in a wide sense, in one placc as referring cven to the sinkhya system.?5° In that work the word is used according to Sankara with reference to the Mahabharata or the Manusmnrti ( Vedantasatra II. 3. 47, Il. 1. 14 and 21, IV. 2.14). In ancient times the number of smrtis (i. e. works on dharma- Sistra ) must have been very small. Gautama mentions by name no smrtikara except Manu, though he speaks of dharmasastras (XI. 19). Baudhdyana names seven ( besides himself) authors on dharma, viz. Aupajanghani, Katya, Kasyapa, Gautama, Prajapati, Maudgalya and [प्रात Vasistha names only five authors, Gautama, Prajapati, Manu, Yama, and प्राता, Apastamba mentions a large number, viz. ten, some of whom like Eka, Kunika and Puskarasadi are no more than mcre names to us. Manu speaks of only six ( besides himself) viz. Atri, the son of Utathya, Bhrgu, Vasistha, Vaikhanasa ( or.rather Vikhanas ) and Saunaka. But in all these works the writers arc mentioned only casually and there is no regular enumeration or list of writers on dharma in one place. Apararka quotes (p. 7 ) a ऽप्य of Gautama (not found in the printed G. Dh. ऽ.) in which sixteen authors of dharmasastras including himself are enumerated.?57_ The same sitra with slight variations is ascribed to Sankha-Likhita in the Viramitrodaya ( Paribhasa- prakasa p. 16 ). Yajnavalkya is probably the earliest writer who enumerated in one place (I. 4-5 ) twenty expounders of dharma ( including himself and counting Sankha and Likhita as two distinct persons). It will be noticed that Yaj. omits Baudhayana. Parasara also gives a list of 19 expounders of dharma (excluding 254 श्रुति्तु वेदो विदेय) धर्मश तु वे समति; | मनु 7. 10. 255 स्मतेवां स्याद्‌ बाह्मणानाम्‌ । पू. मी. सु. र. 4. 48 ( "०978 ४० आसज्य ). 256 स्पृत्यनवकाशदोषपसङ्गे इति चेनान्यस्मृत्यनवकाशदोषपसङ्गात्‌ | वेदान्तसूत्र 7.1. 1. 257 ary गोतमः । स्मृतिध्मशाज्ञाणि तेषां प्रणेतारो मनुविष्ण॒दक्षङ्गिरोनिब्हस्पत्युशन- आपिस्तम्बगोतमसंवतेनत्रेयकात्यायनशङ्कलिसितपराशरब्यासशातातपभचेतोयाज्ञवल्क्याद्‌यः। $0. The Smrtis 18% himself), but his list differs slightly from that of Yaj. ParaSara omits Brhaspati, Yama, and Vyasa and adds Kaéyapa, Gargya and Pracetas. The Tantra-vartika ( p. 125 ) of Kumirila speaks of eighteen dharmasarhhitis. Visvaripa quotcs a verse of Vrddha- Yajiiavalkya, who adds ten names to the list of Yajfiavalkya (vide note 219 above ), The Caturvirhégatimata is a work which professes to give the views of 24 sages on dharmasastra, viz. all those listed by Yaj. (except Katyayana and Likhita) and six more, viz. Gargya Narada, Baudhayana, Vatsa, Visvamitra, Sankha (Sankhydyana ? ) Angiras as quoted in the Smrticandrika ( I. p. 1 ), Hemadri ( Danakhanda p. 528), the Sarasvativilisa ( p. 13 ) and other works mention Upasmrtis.759 There is a smrti called Sattrirnsan- mata quoted by the Mit., Apararka and other works. Paithinasi as quoted in the Smrticandrika, the Sarhskiramaytkha and other works enumerates 36 smrtis.26° Apararka says that the Bhavisyat- purina speaks of 36 smrtis and his enumeration of them is slightly different from that of Paithinasi.2¢* The Vrddhagautamasmrti ( Jivananda part IT. pp. 498-499 ) gives a list of 57 dharma-sastras. The Prayoga-parijita as quoted in the Viramitrodaya cnumerates 18. 258 वक्तारो धर्मशाखचाणां APA BTU: | वकिषठदक्षसंवतंशातातपपराशराः॥ अआपस्तम्बो- शनोभ्यासाः PAT ASeTA | गातमः Renae हारीतोच्रिरहे तथा ॥ याज्ञ. 1. 4-5 ( Trivandrum ed.). The Mit. reads the two verses differently though the names are the same, 259 ARE: पुलद्चे गार्ग्यः THT शोनकः करतः । बोधायनो जतकर्णो विश्वामित्रः पिता- महः॥ जावालिन।चिकेतश्च स्कन्दो कागाक्षिकश्यपो। ग्य।सः सनत्कृभार्च शन्तनजनक- स्तथा ॥ व्याघ्रः कत्यायनश्वेव जातूकर्ण्यः SAAS: वोधायनश्च Sonat विन्वमित्र- स्तथैव च ॥ पदीनसिर्गोभिलश्यत्युपस्म्ातिविधायकाः॥ qwoted as from प्रयोगप।रिनात by वीिमिन्रोदय ( परिभाषाप्र. p. 18 ), The वार्‌. adds that these upasmrtis were enumerated by the Madanaratna also 260 तेषां मन्वीह्गरोन्यासमीतमान्यशनोयमाः । वसिष्ठदक्षसंवतंशातःतपपराशराः ॥ विष्ण्वा- पस्तम्बहारीताः शद्धः कात्यायनो गुरः। प्रचेता नारदो योगी बोधायनपितामद्ो॥ सुमन्तु- काश्यपो बभ्रुः पेदीनो व्याघ्र एवं च ॥ सत्पवरतो भरद्वाजो गाभ्यः काष्णाजिनिस्तथा ॥ जाबालिजौमदभिश्च लोगाक्षिगेह्संभवः । हति धभप्रणेतारः TG स्मृताः ॥ quoted in the स्मति्चन्द्रिका and संस्कारमयसख 261 ताश्च मनुविष्णयमदक्षङ्गिःरोनिबरस्पत्यशनःपस्तम्बवसिष्ठकात्यायनपराशरव्यासशङ्लिसिं तरसवर्तगे।तमशातातपहारतयज्ञवल्क्यपवेतीबुधदेवलसोमजमदभिविन्वामिन्रनज.पनति- नारद्पेदीनससिपितामहबोधायनछागलेयजाधालिष्यवनमरौजिकश्यपा हति TANT स्मृत्यन्तरे पठिताः । अपराक ए. 7. 134 History of Dharmatisira principal smrtis, 18 upasmrtis and 21 other smrtikaras.26 If all the smptis cited in the later nibandbas such as the Nirnayasindhu, the Mayakhas of Nilakantha and the Viramitrodaya be taken into account, the number of smrtis will be found to be about 100, The smrtis thus relied upon are the products of different and and widely separated ages. Some of them are entirely in prose or in mixed prose and verse, while the large majority are in verse. A few of them are very ancient and were composed centuries before the Christian era. Such are the dharmasarras of Gautama, Apastamba, Baudhayana, and the Manusmrti. Some were composed in the first centuries of the Christian era such as the smrtis of Yajiavalkya, ParaSara, Narada. Most of the smrtis other than the above fall between the period from 400 A.D. to 1000 A. D. The chronology of all these smrtis presents perplexing problems. Some of the metrical smrtis are remodellings of older sitras as in the case of Sankha. There are sometimes as many as two or three different smytis going under the same name, e.g. Satatapa, Harita, Atri. Then the confusion is worse confounded by the fabrications of sectarian zeal, such as the Haritasmrti which is full of Vaisnavaite teachings. There are several works going under the names of well- known smrtikaras with the prefixes Vrddha, Brhat, Laghu. In many cases the works going under these names are different from the smrtis that are without these prefixes and this differentiation took place at a very early date in certain cases, for example, so early a writer as Visvaripa distinguishes between YaAjfiavalkya and Vrddha-Yajiiavalkya, Gargya and Vyddha-Gargya. Similarly Visvaripa quotes (on ४३}. I. 69 ) Vrddha-Manu and (on Y4j. I. 19) Vrddha-Vasistha, which latter probably was different from the Vasisthadharmasitra, as the latter does not contain the details given 963 The 18 principal समतिकार” according to the भयोगपाश्जित are मनु, बहु ह्यति, दक्ष, गोतम, यम, अङ्गिरस्‌, योगीश्वर, प्रचेतस्‌, शातातप, पराशर, संवत, उश- TY, शङ्कुः लिखित, अत्रि, विष्ण, आपस्तम्ब, हारीत. The उपस्म॒ति$ have been enumerated above (in n. 259). The other 21 smptis are : यु्िष्ठो ANAT सुम- ay पित।महः । विष्णः काष्णीजिनिः सत्यव्रतो dey देवलः ॥ जमदत्निर्मारद्वाजः पुलल्त्यः पुलहः क्रतुः । आत्रेयश्य Pay AOR एव च ॥ पारस्कर्ध- प्यशृङगो वेजवापस्तथेव च । TAA स्मृतिकतोर एकर्विशतिरीरिताः॥ वीरि ०, परिमाषाप° p. 18, $0, The Smrlis 16 by Visvarapa.*4s In some cases the works designated Vrddha or Brhat are larger and in all cases later than the works without those prefixes. For example, Parasara and Brhat-Parasara ( Jivananda part II. pp. 55-310), Gautama and Vrddha-Gautama ( Jivananda part Il. pp. 497-638 ). Some of the works with the prefix Vrddha are versified compilations of prose works, €. g. Mit. on Yaj. III. 267 quotes a verse from Vrddha-Visnu which is merely the versified equivalent of Visnu-dharmasitra chap. 50. 6, 12-14. It appears that sometimes the same work is cited with the prefix Vrddha or Brhat, €, g. the Mit. on ४३}. II. 135 quotes a passage from Brhad- visnu which is the same as the Visnudharmasttra 17. 4-7. As most of the writers of digests quote from memory and had recourse to mss. and not to standard editions, even well known verses are ascribed to different authors in different works. The verses ‘bhratrnam-aprajah’ &c. which are quoted as Narada’s ( Narada 16.25-26 ) in the Vyavaharamayakha are attributed to Sankha in the Madanaparijata (p. 680). The three verses about bandhus are ascribed to Baudhiyana by Madhava and to Vrddhasatatapa by the Madanaparijata ( p. 674 ) In spite of all these drawbacks, an attempt willbe made in the following pages to arrange some of the leading versified smrtis in chronological order beginning from the Manusmrti. All these smrtis are not cqual in authority. Most of them are obscure and are only rarely cited by ancient commentators. exclusive of the dharmasitras hardly a dozen smrtis have found commentators. If we are to judge of the authority of a smrti by the commentaries thercon, then the Manusurti stands pre-eminent. Next to it is the Yajiiavalkyasmru. 31. The Manusmrti So many editions of this work have been published in India since 1813 ( when the Manusmrti was first published at Calcutta ), that it is not possible to name them. In this work the Nirnaya- sigara edition with the commentary of Kullaka has been used throughout. Another edition of Manu well known on this side of India is that of the late V. N. Mandlik who published several com- 263 qeafemaang मध्ये साम्यमिति तु विशेषः, Vide afte. सू. 11. 64-68 for the five ती on one’s Land. 36 History of Dharmasastra ‘mentaries snch as those of Medhatithi, Govindaraja and others. The Manusmrti has been translated into English sevcral times. The best known translation is that of Dr. Buhler in the ऽ. ए. E. series (vol. 25 ). Dr. Buhler also added an exhaustive and very scholar- ly introduction to his translation and dealt with numerous problems connected with the Manusmrti. In the Rgveda Manu is spoken of as the father of mankind (Rg. I. 80. 16, I. 114. 2, II. 33. 13) and a Vedic poet prays that he .may not be led away from the ancestral path of Manu.?6+ Another Vedic bard says that Manu was the first to offer sacrifice ( Rg. X. 63. 7 ). In the Taittiriya Samhita and the Tandya-maha-brah- mana it is said ^ whatever Manu said is medicine.’ Taittiriya-Sarh- hita ( II. 1.5.6 ) also says that mankind is Manu’s (Manavyo hi pra- jah ). In the Taittiriya Sarnhita ( III. 1.9. 4-5 ) and the Aitareya Brahmana ( ४. 14 ) we have the story of Manu dividing his wealth among his sons and of the exclusion of his son Nabhanedistha, The Satapatha-brahmana (५, B. E. vol. 12 p. 216) gives us the story of Manu and the deluge. In the Nirukta (chap. III ) there is a discussion about the rights of sons and daughters. One of the views there propounded is that children of both sexes take their father’s wealth and a 7k and Sloka are cited in support of that position.6° The loka refers to the opinion of Manu Svayarhbhuva. Itis noteworthy that that sloka is opposed to a rik, which means that the gloka is not Sruti but is Smrti. So before Yaska wrote there were smrti texts in verse in which Manu was spoken of as a law- giver. We have scen how Gautama and Vasistha quote the views of Manu and how Apastamba connects Manu with the promulgation of $raddhas (II. 7. 16. 1 ). The Mahabharata in numerous places speaks of Manu, sometimes as Manu simply, sometimes as Svayath- bhuva Manu (Santi21.12) and also as Pracetasa Manu (Santi $7- 43 ). Inthe Mahabharata (Santi. chap. 336. 38-46 ) we are told how the supreme being composed a hundred thousand Slokas 264 मा न॑ः पृथः पित्य॑न्मानवादाधे' दूरं नेष्ट परावतः । ऋष्ेद्‌ VILL. 30.3. 265 यद्रे कं च मनुरवदत्तद्रेषजम्‌ । ते, स. 71. ४. 10. 2 ; “मनुँ यक्किचावदत्तद्रेषजं भेषज. ताये" ताण्ड्य ° 23. 16. 11. 266 अविशेषेण मिथनाः पुत्रा दायाद्‌ हात | तदेतदृकूष्लोकाभ्यामुक्तम्‌ । अङ्गादङ्गात्तंमवसि हृदयादधिजायसे । अत्मा वे TTA स जीव शरद्‌ः शतम्‌ ॥ हाते । अविशेषेण त्राणां Sagat धर्मतः । मिथुनानां विसगोदौ मनुः स्वा्य॑मुवोऽमर्वत्‌ ॥ $1. The Manusmrti 137 on dharma, how Manu Svayarhbhuva promulgated those dharmas and how Uéganas and Brhaspati composed sastras based on the work of Manu Svayambhuva.*6” In another place the account is slightly different and Manu does not figure therein. Santi-parva ( chap. 59. 80-85 ) describes how the original work of Brahma on the three, Dharma, Artha, and Kama, in 100000 chapters was successively re- duced to 10000, 5000, 3000 and 1000 chap. respectively by Visalaksa, Indra, Bahudantaka, Brhaspati and Kavya ( Usanas ). The prose introduction to the Narada-smrti says that Manu composed in 100 > glokas, 1080 chap. and 24 prakarayas a Dharmasastra and imparted it to Narada, who abridged it into 12000 verses and taught ` it to Markandeya, who in his turn compressed it into 8000 slokas and passed it on to Sumati Bhargava, who again reduced it to 4000 Slokas. The Narada-smrti then gives the first ४८1७६२6४ of that work which is a combination of the extant Manu I. 5-6 and says that vyavahara was the gth prakarana cut of 24 in the original work of Manu. It will be noticed how this version differs from that ot the Mahabharata wherein Narada is altogether ignored. The extant Manusmrti ( I. 32-33 ) narrates how from Brahma sprang Viraj, who produced Manu, from whom were born the sages including Bhrgu and Narada, how Brahma taught the gastra to Manu, who in his turn imparted it to the ten sages (I. 58 ), how some great sages approached Manu and sought instruction in the dharmas of the varyas and the intermediate castes and how Manu told them that his pupil Bhrgu would impart to them the Sastra (1, 59-60 ). This appearance is kept up throughout the work. The sages interrupt Bhrgu’s discourse in several places ( ४5 in V. 1-2 and XII. 1-2). Manu is said to be omniscient ( II. 7) and Manu is mentioned by name dozens of times in the work with the words ^^ Manuraha” ( IX. 158, X. 78 etc ), or ‘“‘Manur-abravid” or ‘“‘Manor-anugasanam”. 91 ऋषीनुवाच तान्सवानदृश्यः Teta: | Ba शतसहस्रं हि श्ोकानामिदूमुत्तममू Nate तन्त्रस्य GAT THY Wa । ... तस्मात्मवक्ष्यते THT मनुः स्वायैयुबः स्वयम्‌ । ... ayy धर्मेषु wet चोरानसे st । य॒हृस्यतिमते चेव लोकेषु मतिचारिते ॥ | 98 तन्रायमादयः sere: । आसीदिदै तमोमूतं न प्रा्षायत et) ततः स्वयैभूर्मगवा- ग्पावुरासीष्चतुर्मसः ॥, Manu I. 5 is quoted as theverseofa स्म॒तिकार्‌ by कृमलशीङ्छं in his comment on शम्तरक्षित ° तस्वसमरह ( कारिक $118 ) in the middle of the 6th century A.D. Vide सूरे ७ बृहद्‌ रण्यकमाभ्यवार्तिक Po 487, ० २, 18, 138 History of Dharmatistra ( VIII. 139, 279, IX. 239, etc). That the introductory words in the Narada-smrti are not spurious or a later addition follows from the remark of Medhatithi that, according to the Naradasmrti, Prajapati composed a work in 100000 glokas which was abridged by Manu and others.*2 No one should take very seriously these varying accounts even in the Mahabharata and in the Naradasmrti, as they are intended to glorify some particular text or texts. According to the Bhavisya-purana as quoted in Hemadri, the Sarhskara-mayakha and other works, there were four versions of the Svayarhbhuva Sastra composed by Bhrgu, Narada, Brhaspati and Angiras.27° So early a writer as Visvartipa cites verses from Manusmrti as those of Svayath- bha ( vide com. on Yaj. II. 73, 74, 83, 85, where Manu 8. 68, 70-71, 380 and 105-6 are respectively quoted as Svayarhbht’s), while quotations from Bhrgu cited by Visvaripa (on Yaj. I. 187 and 252 ) are not found in the Manusmrti. In the same way most of the verses quoted from Bhrgu by Apararka are not foundin the Manu- smrti. One verse which Apararka quotes from Bhrgu (on Yaj. II. 96) speaks of the view contained therein as that of Manu.?7! It is almost impossible to say who composed the Manusmrti. It goes without saying that the mythical Manu, progenitor of mankind even in the Rgveda, could not have composed it. What motives could have induced the unknown author to palm it off in the name of the mythical Manu and to suppress his identity it is dificult to say. One motive may have been to invest the work with a halo of antiquity and authoritativeness. Buhler following Max Miller says (SBE vol. 25 p. XVIII ) that the Manusmrti is based on or is a recast of an ancient dharmasatra, viz. that of the Manavacarana. The question whether the Manavadharmasiatra existed has been discussed above (sec. 13, pp. 79-85). Buhler himself candidly admits ( SBE vol. 25, p. XXIII ) that the recovery of the writings of the Manavas has not only not furnished any facts in support ofthe alleged relation between the Manavadharmasitra and the 0 TN PT an Ale 269 नारदश्च स्मरति । UTA म्रन्थः प्रजापतिना Ba: स मन्वादिभिः क्रमेण Sere इति । मेधातिथि on मनु 1. 58 210 arden नारदीय च बादृस्पत्याङ्गिरस्यपि । स्वाथमवस्य. शाञ्जस्य तख; संहिता मताः ॥ चतुवेग °, दानसण्ड P- 528, संस्कारमयुख 0. 2 $71 येषु ण भ्वानि परिशुद्धानि यत्नतः । कारयेत्सप्णनेस्तानि नामिशस्तं ego: ॥ $1, The Manusmrit 189 Manusmrti, but on the contrary has raised difficulties as the doctrines of the Manavagrhyasitra (edited by Dr. Knauer) differ very considerably from those of the Manusmrti. To take only a few examples, Manava Gr. S. II. 12. 1-2 are opposed to Manu 3. 1; Manava Gr. ऽ. I. 4.7 to Manu 4. 95 ; Manava Gr. ऽ. I. 20. 1 to Manu 2. 34 ; Manava Gr. S. I. 21. 1 to Manu 2. 35; Manava Gr. ऽ, I. 22. 7 to Manu 2. 36 ; Manava Gr. S. II. 12. 1-2 to Manu 3. 84-86. Besides there is nothing in our Manu corresponding to the Vinayakaganti in the Manavagrhya (II. 14) nor to the tests for selecting a bride prescribed in Manava Gr. S. I. 7. 9, which corresponds to Aévalayana Gr. ऽ. I. 5. 5-6. Dr. Caland points out (९. und ऽ. p. 17 ) that though single verses of the Manusmrti tally with the Sraddhakalpa of the Manava School, yet the descriptions of funeral rites widely differ in the two works. There are no doubt some parallels as pointed out by Bradke ( in ZDMG, vol. 36, pp. 417-477 ). There 15 one circumstance about the authorship of the Manusmrti that deserves to be noted. The Mahabharata seems to distinguish between Svayarhbhuva Manu and Pracetasa Manu. The former is said to be the promulgator of dharmasastra and the latter of arthaSastra (or politics). For example Santi 21. 12 speaks of Svayrhbhuva Manu and Santi 57-43 and 58-2 speak of Pracetasa as an author on rajasastra or rajadharma. In some places Manu alone without any epithet is associated with rajadharma or arthavidya. It is not unlikely that originally there were two distinct works, one on dharma and the other on arthaSastra attributed to Manu. When the Kautiliya speaks of the Manavas, he probably refers to the work on politics attributed to Pracetasa Manu. It is extremely doubtful whether Rajasekhara, when he mentions the several views on the number of vidyas (including that of the Manavas that they were three ), had the Arthagastra of the Manavas before him or only copied a passage from Kautilya ( vide Kavyamimathsa p. 4 ) It is not unlikely that the work on dharma attributed to Manu may have contained general directions on _ the duties of kings. It is therefore (i.e. because there were two different works on dharma and arthagastra attributed to Manu ) that the views ascribed to the Manavas by the Kautiliya are not found word for word in the extant Manusmrti. One may 98 rade राजवमन्यथा & मनुरमवीत्‌ । वनपर ॐ. 9; वेदं eae वेदाहमथवियां च मानवीम्‌ ॥ द्रोणपवे ?. 1. {40 History of Dharmatistra hazard the conjecture that the author of the Manusmrti, whoever he might have been, combined in his work the information contain- ed in the two works on dharma and arthasastra and supplanted both the earlier works and that this result had not been either accompli- shed at the time when the Kautiliya was composed or was then quite recent. In the extant Manusmrti, the work is ascribed to Svayarh- bhuva Manu and then six other Manus of whom Pricetasa is not one are enumerated (I. 62 ). The extant Manusmrti is divided into twelve adhyayas and con- tains 2694 Slokas. Dr. Jolly’s cdition ( published in 1895 ) prepar- ed after collating numerous mss. and printed editions contains only one gloka more. The Manusmrti is written in a simple and flowing style. It generally agrees with Panini’s system, though it con- tains some deviations from it asin the verse ‘ saksinah santi mety- प्रप्र ` (8.57). The foregoing pages have sufficiently shown how it agrees closely with the doctrines contained in the Dharmasitras of Gautama, Baudhiyana, Apastamba. We have also seen how numerous verses are common to the dharmasitras of Vasistha and Visnu and the Manusmrti. 11८ Kautiliya also exhibits remarkable agreement with the Manusmrti in phraseology and doctrines.?73 What conclusions are to be drawn from this will be discussed later on. Some verses are repeated, e. g. ४. 164-165 are the same as IX. 30 and 29. The contents of the Manusmrti may be briefly summarised as follows :--( I ) Sages approach Manu for instruction in the dharmas of the varuas; Manu describes the creation of the world from the self-existent God more or lessin the Sankhya manner ; the creation of Viraj, of Manu from Viraj, of ten sages from Manu; creation of various beings, men, beasts, birds etc. ; Brahma imparts dharmasastra to Manu, who tcaches the sages ; Manu bids Bhrgu to instruct the sages in dharma ; six other Manus sprang from Svayath- bhuva Manu; units of time from nimesa to year, the four yugas and Oe RR ee EY — IS 273 Compare aaeqarial ठब्धपररक्षणी रक्षितविवधनी वृद्धस्य तीर्थष प्रतिपादनी च । alter (1. 4) with मनु 7. 101 अलब्धमिच्छेदरण्डेन aod रसषेदवक्षया | रक्षित वर्धयेद्‌ वध्या वृद्धं पत्रेषु निक्षिपेत्‌ ॥ ; '^तस्माह्ठोकयात्रार्थी नित्यमु्यतदषण्डः स्यात्‌ कौटिस्य (7. 4) with मनु 7. 162 नित्यमुयतदृण्डः स्यात्‌; “अरसंमाष्ये देशे साक्षि- भिर्भिथः संभाषते ' कोटिल्य (7.1) with मनु 8.55 (असंभाष्ये साक्षिभिश्य देशे । a मिथः ' } 'साहसमन्वयवलसमकमं! कौटिल्य ( 177. 17) with मनु 8. 39 त्साहृसं त्वन्वयवत्‌ पसम कमं यत्‌ रुतम्‌. 81. The Manusmrti 141 their twilights ; one thousand yugas equal a day of Brahma ; extent of Manvantara, pralaya ; successive decline of dharma in the four yugas ; different dharmas and goals in the four yugas ; the special privileges and duties of the four varnas ; eulogy of Brahmanas and of the astra of Manu ; acara is the highest dharma ; table of contents of the whole Sastra ; ( II ) definition of dharma, sources of dharma are Veda, smrti, acara of the good, one’s own satisfaction; who has adhikara for this sastra ; limits of Brahmavarta, Brahmarsidega, Madhya- १6६2, Aryavarta ; why sarhskaras are necessary ; such sarhskaras as jatakarma, namadheya, chidakarma, upanayana ; the proper time of upanayana for the varyas, the proper girdle, sacred thread, staff and skin for the Brahmacari of the three varnas ; duties of the Brahma- cari and his code of conduct ; ( ) Brahmacarya for 36, 18, 9 years; samavartana ; marriage ; marriageable girl; brahmana could marry a girl of any of the four varunas ; eight forms of marriage defined ; which form suited to which caste ; duties of husband and wife ; eulogy of women ; the five daily yajiids ; praise of the status of householder ; honouring guests ; madhuparka ; sraddhas ; who should not be invited at Sraddhas; (IV) mode of life and means of subsis- tence for a house-holder, the code of conduct for a snataka; occasions for cessation from study; rules about prohibited and per- missible food and drink; (४) what vegetables and meat are allowed ; period of impurity on death and birth ; definition of sapinda and samanodaka ; purification from contact with various substances in various ways ; duties of wife and widow ; (VI) when one should become aa forest hermit ; his mode of life; parivrajaka and his duties ; eulogy of grhasiha; (VII) rajadharmas, eulogy of danda ( the power to punish ); the four vidyas fora king; the ten vices of kings due to kama and eight due tokrodha; constitution of council of ministers; qualities of a data; forts’ and capital; purobita and superintendents of various departments; code of war ; the four expe- dients, sama, dana, bheda, and dauda; hierarchy of officers from the village headman upwards; rules about taxation ; the constitution of a circle of twelve kings ; the six gumas, peace, a state of war, march against an enemy, asana, taking shelter and dvaidha ; duties of victor ; (VIII) king’s duty to look tothe administration of justice; the 18 titles of law ; the king and judge ; other persons as judges; consti- tution of sabha, king’s duty to look after minors, widows, helpless people ; treasure trove ; king’s duty to restore stolen wealth ; credi- tor’s means of recovering his debt; grounds on which the claimant 144 History of Dharmatiira - may fail in his suit ; qualifications of witnesses; who were not proper persons as witnesses; oaths; fines for false witnesses ; methods of corporal punishment; Brahmana to be free from corporal punish- ment ; weights and measures ; lowest, middling and highest fines ; rates of interest ; pledges; adverse possession does not affect a pledge, boundary, minor’s estate, deposit, king’s estate etc. ; rule of damdupat; sureties; what debts of the father the son was not liable to pay; fraud and force vitiated all transactions; sale by one not the owner; title and possession ; partnership; resumption of gift; non-payment of wages; violation of conventions; rescission of sale; dispute between owner and herdsman; pastures round villages; boundary disputes ; abuse, libel and slander ; assault and battery and mischief ; whipping only on the back ; theft; sahasa i. €. offences in which force and hurt are an element, such as robbery, homicide etc; right of private defence ; when even a Brahmana may be killed; adultery and rape ; no sentence of death, but of transportation fora Brahmana; parents, wife, children must not be forsaken ; tolls and monopolies; seven kinds of 00505; (IX) legal duties of husband and wife, censure of women ; eulogy of chastity; to whom does the child belong, to the begetteror to him on whose wife it is begotten ; niyoga described and condemned ; supercession of the first wife when allowed ; age of marriage; partition, its time, eldest son’s special share ; putrika ; daughter’s son ; adopted son; rights of Brah- mana’s son from a sudra wife; twelve kinds of sonship ; to whom pindas are offered ; nearest sapinuda succeeds; sakulya, teacher and pupils as heirs ; king ultimate heir except as to Brahmana’s wealth ; varieties of stridhana ; succession to stridhbana; grounds of exclusion from inheritance ; property not liable to partition; gains of learning ; reunion ; mother and grandmother as heirs ; impartible property ; gambling and prize fighting must be suppressed by the king ; the five great sins ; prayascittas for them; open and secret thieves; jails ; the seven avgas of a kingdom; duties of Vaisya and ९०५५; (X) Brahmana alone to teach; mixed castes; mlecchas, Kamboyjas, Yavanas, Sakas; rules of conduct common to all; privileges and duties of the four varyas; modes of subsistence for a Brhamana in adversity ; what articles should not be sold by Brahmana ; seven proper modes of acquisition and the means of livelihood; (XI) eulogy of gifts; different views about prayascitta; various seen results, diseases and bodily defects due to sins in former lives ; five mortal sins and prayascittas for them ; upapatakas and _prayascittas 1, The Manuemrt 143 for them ; prayascittas like Santapana, Paraka, Candrayana ; holy mantras for removing sin ; (XII) disquistion on karma; ksetrajiia, bhatatma, jiva; tortures of hell; the three guyas, sativa, rajas and tamas ; what brings about nibsreyasa ; knowledge of the self is the highest means of bliss ; pravrtta and mivrtta karma; the latter is karma done without an eye to reward; eulogy of Vedas; place of tarka; sistas and parisad ; reward of studying the Manava Sastra. The extent of the literature known to Manu was considerable. He mentions the three Vedas and the Atharvaveda is spoken of as the Atharvangirasi Sruti ( XI. 33). He refers to Aranyaka (IV. 123). The Vedangas are said to be six (III. 185) and they are often referred to without stating the number (II. 141, IV.98 ). He speaks of dharmasastra (II. 10 ) and also knew many dharmasastras (Ill. 232). By dharmapathaka ( XII. 111 ) he probably means one who has studied dharmasastras. He mentions several authors on dharmasastra, viz. Atri, the son of Utathya (i. €. Gautama according to commentators ), Bhrgu and Saunaka (all these in III. 16), Vasistha (on the rate of interest in VIII. 140 which agrees with Vasisthadharmasttra II. 50 ), Vaikhanasamata (in VI. 21 ) He mentions Akhyanas, Itihisas, Puranas and Khilas (III. 232) He speaks of brabma as described in the Vedanta ( in VI. 83 and 94 ) and is probably thinking of the Upanisads. That he knew some generally accepted works opposed to the teaching of the Vedas is quite clear from his reference to ‘Vedabahyah smrtayah’ ( XII. 95 ). He is probably referring to the writing of the Bauddhas, Jainas and others. He speaks of heretics and their guilds (IV. 30 and 61 ) He refers to atheism and calumny of the Vedas (IV. 163) and of various tongucs spoken among men (IV. 332). He frequently refers to the views of others in the words “‘kecit”, ‘‘apare”, ‘‘anye” (as in IIL. 261, X. 70, IX. 32). Numerous interesting and difficult problems are connected with the Manusmrti. Buhler in his elaborate introduction (SB E vol. 25 ) exhaustively deals with these problems. It is not possible to go at great length into those questions here. A separate volume would be required to deal with the problems raised by Buhler and to examine the arguments of Bithler, Hopkins and others who have written on them. Only a brief discussion of some of these problems can be attempted: 144 | History of Dharmatisira Buhler takes considerable pains to refute the claims ot Manu to be regarded as the first legislator ( S.B. E. vol. 25 pp. XXIII-XXX ), But no serious refutation of the claim is really needed. The very extent of the literature known to the Manusmrti and the mention of several writers on dharmasastra by name are sufficient to negative that claim. | Buhler devotes a great deal of space to the consideration of the question as to what circumstances led to the substitution of a universally binding Manava-dharmasastra for the manuals of the Vedic schools (S. B. E. vol. 25 pp. XLVI-LVI ) and as to why the special law schools selected just the Manavadharmasitra among the large number of similar works for the basis of their studies (ibid. pp. LVII-LXV ). Buhler then considers the question how the Manavadharmasttra was converted into the present Manusmrti. Buhler concedes that the last is a problem of great difficulty and admits of an approximate solution only. The discussion of all these questions by Bihler is extremely thought-provoking and brilliant in many places, though it must be said with great respect that the arguments are often 4 priori and savour more or less of special pleading. AsI question the very foundation of Bihler’s edifice (viz. the actual existence of a Manava-dharmasitra ), it would be futile for me to enter into a discussion of the problems referred to above. I shall now address myself to the discussion of the age of the Manusmrti from external and internal evidence. That question is bound up with other problems, viz. whether there are earlier and later strata in the extant Manusmrti, whether the Manusmrti was recast several times or once only, what relations exists between the. Manusmrti and the Mahabharata. First the external evidence may be takenup. ‘The bhasya of Medhatithi is the earliest extant commentary on the Manusmrti and was composed about 900 A. D. as will be shown later on (sec.36). The text commented upon by Medhatithi was the same (barring ४ few various readings ) as the one we now possess. Therefore long before 900 A. D. the Manusmrti was the same as now. Viévardpa in his commentary on Y4j. quotes over two hundred verses of the Manusmyti either wholly or in part from all the twelve chapters beginning with the very first verse. The text that Visvardpa had before him was the same as the present Manusmrti and the verses 81. The Manusmrtt 145 were arranged in the same order as at present. Visvartipa quotes eight verses ( Manu XI. 108-115 ) from Manu (on Yaj. III. 262 ) Sankaracarya in his Vedantsatra-bhisya quotes the Manusmrti very frequently. For example, he quotes Manu J. 5 and 21 ( on V.S.1. 3. 28), 1.27 (on V.S. IV. 2.6 ), Il. 87 Con V. S. Il. 4. 38 ), X.4 and 126 (on V. S.J. 3. 36), XII. 91 and 105-6 ( on V.S. I. rand rz). In his bhasya on the Br. U. he quotes Manu dozens of times and calls the Manusmrti27+ ‘Manavam’ ( on Br. U. I. 4. 72). He looks upon the Manusmrti as one of the authorities on which the author of the. Vedantasatra relies.?75 The Tantravartika of Kumirila stands in a special relation to the Manusmrti. Vide JBBRAS for 1925 pp. 98-100. He places Manu at the head of all smrtis, even higher than the dharma- siitra of Gautama. He cites numcrous quotations from the first chapter of the Manusmrti to the last. He looks upon all parts of the extagt Manusmrti as equally authoritative and regards the Manu- smyti as the highest authority on matters of dharma. The Mrecha- katika?76 ( 9. 39 ) refers to the ordinance of Manu that a Brahmana sinner was not to be sentenced to death, but was to be banished. An inscription of the Valabhi king Dharasena dated in the year 252 of the Valabhi era (i. €. 571 A. D. ) speaks of a king as one who obeyed the rules composed by Manu?77 (I. A. vol. 8. p. 303 = Gupta Inscriptions p. 165 ). Vide 21501. A. vol. IV. p. ros where the same words occur in an inscription from Valabhi dated 216 of the Valabhi era (1. e. 535 A. D.). Sabarasvamin, the bhasyakara of Jaimini’s sutras, who cannot be placed later than 500 A. D. and may be a few centuries earlier still, says “‘ Manu and others have given ४५ मानवे च सवौ प्रवृत्तिः कामहेतुक्येवोति, Vide मनु. 7. 4 275 On the sutra स्मरन्ति च (वेदान्तसुन्र II. 1. 14 ) 8०६४९०९ adds “भनुष्यासममृतयः शिष्टः °. | 96 अवं हि पातकी विप्रो न वध्यो मनुरत्रवीत्‌ । राष्टरादस्मात्त॒ निवीस्यो विभवेरक्षतेः सह ॥. Compare मनु 8. 880 न जातु meet हन्यात्स्ैपापिष्वपि स्थितम्‌ । Tee बहिः कूुयोत्तमप्रधनमक्षतम्‌ |, The words Uy and अक्षत ocourring in both may particularly be noted. aU मन्वादिपिणीतविधिविधानकमी, 25 De 19. 146 © History of Dharmatiatra instruction?78 ” and quotes a verse as a smfti passage which is prac- tically the same as Manu IX. 416 and similar to Udyoga-parva?79 33. 64. Apararka and Kullika point out how the Bhavisyapurana expounds passages of the Manusmyrti( vide Kullaka on Manu XI. 72, 73, 100 and Apararka pp. 1071, 1076 ).28 It will be shown below that Brhaspati must have composed his work before 500 A.D. Brhaspati says that the Manusmrti occupies a pre-eminent position because it correctly represents the sense of the Veda and that asmpti which is in conflict with Manu is not esteemed.?®* Byhaspati in numerous places pointedly refers to the present text of the Manu- smrti. One such quotation about niyoga has been cited above (note 172). Brhaspati says ^ Manu has spoken of quantities ( units of weights ) beginning from the mote in the sun-beam to the karsipana.?®? ” This is obviously a reference to Manu 8. 132-136. Brhaspati says ^^ Manu enumerated thirteen sons and just as in the absence of clarified butter, oil is a substitute, so in the absence of an aurasa son or a puirika, the cleven kinds of son are a subst 16.283 ” This has in view Manu 9. 158-160, 180, 127-130, wher® Manu speaks of the twelve sons, out of whom eleven are substitutes and 278 उपदिष्टवन्तश्च मन्वादयः ० पृवेमीमांसा 1.1. 2 (vol. 1.7. 4). 279 एवं च स्मरति । भाथा दासश्च पृच्रश्च निधनाः सरव एव ते । यत्ते समधिगच्छन्ति यस्य ते तस्य AAT ॥. ४४१०० ९९०० मायो पुत्रश्च दासश्च चय एवाधनाः शृताः, While उयोग ० "०३५७ त्रय एवाधन। राजन्भार्या द्‌सस्तथा सतः 280 On aq XI. 73 कल्कं says ‘ मनुश्लोकमेव किखित्वा यथा sara ( तं { ) भवि- पय्पुरणि ' ; On मनु 21. 100 “अत एव मन्वरथन्याख्यानपरे भविष्यपुराणे ” 281 वेद्‌(्थोपनिबन्द्रत्वात्राधान्यं तु ATTA | मन्वथेविपरीता या समातिः सा न THETA ॥ ( quoted by अपराकं On Y8)j II. 21 and by BIE ०० मन I. 1. who adds one more verse from ageqia ‹ तावच्छख्चाणि श्लोभन्ते तकेन्याकृरणानि च । धमाध मोक्षोपदेष्टा मनु्यावन्न दृश्यत wv)’. 282 संख्या ररिमिरजोमूला मनुना ATTA । काषापणान्ता स। दिव्ये नियोज्या विनये तथा ॥ quoted by अपराकं OD याज्ञ, II. 99 and by the WAT o ( sq, ए. ४1 ). ४83 पुन्न स्योदश प्राकता मनुना येन Ta: । संतनकारणं तेषामोरसः पुत्रिका यथा ॥ आज्यं विना यथ। तेल सद्भिः MANNS: स्म्रतम्‌ । तथैकादश ॒पुतरारतु पुश्रिकोरसयो- “ बिना ॥ quoted by अपराकं on याज्ञ, 1..128-19४ and the दु्तकैमीमां्ता (P- 5%). 81. The Manusmrts 147 advocates that a sonless man should appoint a daughter ( putrika, who then is the 13th kind of son). In another place Brhaspati declares ^^ Manu forbade gambling as it destroys truth, purity and wealth ; but others allowed it provided a share was given to the king ( in the gains of gambling?* ).” This very aptly describes the attitude of Manu ( 9. 224) and of Yaj. (II. 201-203), Brhaspati says “‘ Ifa mankills a cow with a weapon &c., he should perform the penance laid down by Manu, but if he kills a cow by forcible restraint, then he should perform the penance [भव down by Angiras or Apastamba.” The reference is to Manu XI. 108-115, Apastamba Dh. S. I. 9. 26. 1 and Angirasa verse 27 ( Jivananda, part I p. 556 ). In one place Brhaspati seems to criticise Manu (9. 219 ) when he says ‘‘ those who declared clothes and other things to be impartible have not considered the position that the wealth of the rich may consist of clothes and ornaments.?*5 ” In another place Brhaspati says “‘ Bhrgu spoke of sale without ownership after deposit; listen to it attentively, I shall speak of it with more details.28° ” This keeps in view Manu 8. 4 and clearly shows that Brhaspati was well aware of Bhrgu’s connection with the extant Manusmrti. Angiras as quoted in the Smrticandrika (I. p. 7 ) speaks of the dharmaéastra of Manu. In the Vajrasici of Asvaghosa ( ed. by Weber ) several verses are quoted as from the ‘ Manavadharma’ which occur in the extant Manusmirti,?®7 though it must be admitted that there are others that ४8५ यूतं निषिद्धं मनुना सस्य-( त्य ! )शीचधनापहम्‌ । तत्परवर्तितमन्येस्तु राजभागसम- न्वितम्‌ | सभिकाधिष्ठितं कार्यं तस्करज्ञानहेतुना |, It is striking that ayjq, uses the word तस्करक्षानकारणात्‌ in II. 208. 985 व्ञाद्‌योऽविभास्या aes aa विचारितम्‌ । धनं भवेत्समद्वानां ae AAT ॥ + quoted by अपराकं ON याह, II. 119 and by the व्यवहारमयुख. 286 निक्षेपानन्तरं प्रोक्तो मूगणास्वामिविक्रयः । श्रूयतां ते यत्नेन सविशेष अवीम्यटम्‌ ॥ विवाद्रत्नाकर्‌ 9. 100. The words of मनु are तेषामादयमृणादूनं निक्ेपोस्वामिविक्रयः. 287 ०.४. उक्तं हि मनवे धर्मै-- सयः पताति मांसेन लाक्षया लवणेन वा । यहाच्छुद्रश्च मवति ब्राह्मणः क्षीरिक्रयात्‌ ॥ ( thisis मनु >. 98) ; उक्तं हि मानवे धर्म ‘ वृषलीफेनपीतस्य निःन्वासोपहतस्य च । तन्नेव च प्रसूतस्य निष्रतिर्नापलभ्यते ॥ › ( this is मनु 77.19 ) } उक्तं हि भानवे धर्मे “ अधीत्य चतुरो वेदान्‌ MATT तत्वतः RTARTA ATEN जायते सरः \ लरो द्वाद् जम्भनि षरि जम्भनि सूकरः 1 AKT सप्ततिजन्मानि इत्येवं ATTA ॥ ° ( this cannot be traced in the extant Manusmrti ) ; इ हि मानषधर्ममिहितम्‌ | अर्णागभ- 148. Eitstory of Dharmatastra do not occur. In the Ramayana also there are verses cited as from Manu which occur in the extant Manusmrti; vide Kiskindha 18.30-32 (Gujarati Press, 1915-1920) where two verses are quoted as ‘sung by Manu’ which correspond to Manusmrti VIII. 318 and 316 respectively. The foregoing discussion of the external evidence shows that writers from the 2nd century onwards (if not earlier) looked upon the extant Manusmirti as the most authoritative smrti. This position it could not have attained unless several centuries intervened between it and these writers. Therefore it must be presumed that the Manusmrti had attained its present form at least before the 2nd century A.D. Even the Mahabhisya contains a verse which is Manu II. 120.288 But as the verse occurs also in the णद sana ( 104. 64-65 ) no chronological conclusion can be drawn therefrom, The Pratimanataka (after V. 8 ) speaks of ‘“‘manaviya- dharmasastra’ and ‘Pricctasa sriddhakalpa,’ but as it 15 in controversy whether that work. can be ascribed to the ancient Bhasa, this reference will serve no useful purpose. The next question is whether the Manusmrti contains earlier and later strata. There can be no doubt on this point. On nume- rous points the Manusmirti contains conflicting doctrines. In Manu III. 12-13 a Brihmana is allowed to have a Sadra woman as wife, while in III. 14-19 it is emphatically asserted that a sadra woman cannot be the wife of a Brahmana and heavy disabilities are prescrib- ed for him who breakstheinjunction. In III. 23-26 there are contra- dictory statements about the appropriate forms of marriage for the several castes. In one breath Manuscemsto permit niyoga (9. 59-63) and immediately afterwards he strongly reprobates it (9. 64-69). The lengthy discussion on flesh-cating in Manu V. 27-56 discloses different mentalities. At several places the work seems even to recommend flesh-cating in sacrifice, sraddhas and madhuparka ( V. 31-32, 35, 39,41 ), while clsewhere it recommends _ total abstinence from meat on all cccasions whatever (V. 48-50 ). In संभूतः कटो नाम मह्यमुनिः । ATA बह्मणो जातस्तस्माज्जातिर कारणम्‌ ॥ This is ६ llowed by several verses citing instances of व्यास, वसिष्ठ, ऋष्यशृङ्ग, eat, नारद्‌ and others who though born of women of low class ecamo sages. These verses also are not found inthe extant मनस्मति, = © 988 उद्वे प्राणा स्यत्कामन्ति यूनः स्थविर आयति । मत्युत्थानामिवादाभ्यां पुनस्तान्माति- परे ॥ मह्मभाष्य Vol. ITT, p. 58. This verse occurs also in the दुद्योगप्वं (38. 1). $1. The Manuemrti 149 one sloka ( Manu II. 145 ) the father is saidto be equal to a hundred aciryas, while in the next verse the atarya is said to be superior to the father. In V. 1 Bhrgu is said to have sprung from fire, while in I. 35 he is said to be one of the ten sons of Manu Svayarhbhuva. Vide also IX. 32-56. Buhler devotes considerable space to this question (SBE vol. 25. pp- LXVI-LXXIII ). He arrives at the conclusion that the cosmological and philosophical portions in the first and rath books, the philosophical disquisition in II. 89-100, the classifications of pitarah in III. 193-201, the means of subsistence for Brahmana in IV. 1-24, verses 1-4 of the fifth book, the rules about mixed castes ( X. 1-74 ) and the duties of castes that are repeated in X. ror-131 were put in when the work was versified from the Manavadharma- sitra. Though one may not agree with all the details of Buhler’s examination and with his theory about the versification of the Manavadharmasitra, it may be admitted that most of the passages pointed out by him have rather the flavour of comparative moder- nism about them. My own position is that the original Manusmrti in verse had certain additions made in order to bring it in a line with the change in the general attitude of people on several points such as those of flesh-eating, niyoga &c. But all these additions must have been made long before the 3rd A. D., as the quotations from Brhaspati and others show. Another problem is whether the Manusmyti has undergone several recasts. This does not seem likely and the evidence adduced in support of the theory that the Manusmyti suffered several recasts is quite inadequate for the purpose. The occurrence of several con- flicting passages can as well be explained on the theory of a single recast and it has also to be borne in mind, as Buhler points out, that Sanskrit writers down to the most recent times are in the habit of placing side by side conflicting opinions without actually preferring a particular view to others. The tradition of the Niaradasmrti that the Sastra of Manu was successively abridged by Narada, Markandeya and Sumati Bhargava is, as has been observed above, not worth much, since it is merely intended to glorify Narada’s work. The other traditions given above either ignore Narada altogether or assign him 4 secondary position. The present Manusmtti is put into the mouth of Bhrgu. Narada’s smrti is clearly based upon Manu, though the former diverges from the latter on many points. Brhaspati 180 Fiisory of Dharmatistra generally takes Manu as his text and amplifies the dicta of the Manu- smrti (as the verses quoted above in notes 281-86 show) and so his work may by analogy be regarded as a Vartika on Manu, as Dr. Jolly puts it, Angiras also looks upon Manusmrti as most authorirative. It is therefore that the Pauranic account ( note 270 above ) regards Bhreu and other works as the redactions of the original Manusmrti. The quotations cited from Vrddha-Manu and Brhan-Manu do not establish that the original Manusmrti underwent many recasts. Quotations cited under these names are later than the Manusmrti. Visvarapa ( on Yaj. I. 69 ) quotes the views of Vrddha-Manu on niyoga, who allows it only to Sadras. The Mitaksara quotes a verse from Vrddha-Manu about the widow of a sonless man being entitled to all her husband’s wealth, while Manu is silent on that point.289 The Mitaksara quotes a verse from Brhan-Manu also (on Y4j. III. 20 ). Madhave quotes a verse from Brhan-Manu about sapinda and samanodaka relationship which are expansions of Manu?% ( ४. 60). The fact that many quotations ascribed to Manu in several works are not found in the extant Manusmrti is explicable in several ways and not only by the theory of several recasts. For one thing the authors quoting from memory may be found tripping. For example, in an inscription of the Badami Calukyas of the 7th century two verses that occur in most grants of lands are ascribed to Manu, but are not found in the extant Manusmrti.29! No one- can for a moment doubt that the extant Manusmrti was an authc- ritative work inthe 7th century. Therefore there is hardly any reliable evidence to support the theory that the Manusmrti suffered several recasts. Turning now to the internal evidence, the extant Manusmpti seems to be much older than YaAjiiavalkya, since the rules of judicial procedure are incomplete and awkward in Manu as compared with Yaj., since there is no reference to documents as evidence in Manu, 289 sagan शयनं तुः पालयन्ती बते स्थिता । Teta दुयात्तविण्डं Beart लमेत च ॥ मिता ०० याल्ञ, 11. 135. 290 ages बहन्मनुना-- सपिण्डता तु Tet सप्तमे विनिवर्तेते | समानोदकभावस्तु निवर्तेता- ATU । जन्मनामस्मतेरेके तत्परं गोत्रमुष्यते ॥ पराशरमाधवीय Vol. 17, part 2, p. 528. 291 मनुगौीतं श्कोकमुदाहरन्ति--यहमिवेसुधा मक्ता राजभिः सगरादिभिः । 82d सवदा बरदुततां वा यो हरेत वसुन्धराम । &०.1. A: vol. ४71. p, 97, $1. The Manuemrti 18d as ordeals are not treated of in Manu, as legal definitions are almost absent in Manu, while frequent in Yaj. and as Manu is silent about the widow’s rights, while Yaj. gives her the first place among the heirs of a sonless man. So the Manusmyti will have to be placed some centuries earlier than the third century A. D., the latest date to which the Yajiavalkya smrti can be assigned with any show of reason. In X. 44 Manu mentions the Yavanas, Kambojas, Sakas, Pahlavas and Cinas?9* and in X. 48 Medas and Andhras. ‘This shows that the extant Manusmrti could not be much earlier than the jrd century B.C. The Yona, Kamboja and Gandhara people are mentioned in the sth rock edict of Asoka. Manu forbids Brahmanas to dwell in the kingdom of a Sadra (IV. 61) and condemns the appointment of a Sidra as a judge ( VIII. 20-21 ) The former is possibly a reference to the Mauryas, though one cannot be certain of it. Mr. Jayasval ( Calcutta Weekly Notes, vol. 15, p. CCC ) goes too far in supposing that in the word < senapatya ’ occurring in Manu ( XII. 100 ) there is a reference to Senapati Pusyamitra. The extant Manusmrti in its arrangement and doctrines is much in advance of the ancient dharmasitras, such as those of Gautama, Baudhayana and Apastamba. Taking all these things into consideration Buhler (S BE vol. 25 p. CXVII ) was certainly right in saying that the extant Manusmrti was composed between the second century B. C and 2nd century A. D. But the question of the date when the original Manusmrti to which additions were made between the 2nd century B.C. and 2nd century A. D. was composed presents very great difficulties. That question is largely bound up with the relation of the Mahabharata to the Manusnrrti. This question is an extremely intricate one. The late V.N. Mandlik ( Intro. to the Vyavaharamayakha XLVII ) held that the Manusmrti borrowed from the Mahabharata. Buhler after an elaborate examination of the question (S B E vol 25, pp. LXXIV- (शा ) came to the conclusion that it was indisputable that the 12th and 13th parvans of the Mahabharata knew a Manavadharma- Sastra which was closely connected with but not identical with the present Manusmrti. Buhler expresses himself very cautiously and it seems to me that the great scholar was unduly prepossessed_ eee ee => ~~~ ॥ a ० Or Ae = ee । 208 पोष्ठकाम्योडद्रिडा; कान्बोज यवना; शका; । पारदाः Gee किराता दरदाः संशाः tt 4152 Hiatory of Diarmasastra in favour of the Mahabharata as against the Manusmrti. Buhler somewhat contradicts himself when he says that the author of the epic only knew the dharmasttras( SBE vol. 25, p. XCVIII ) Hopkins ( Great Epic of India p. 21-22 ) seems inclined to hold that the 13th book which alone, according to him, recognises the Sastra declared by Manu, knew the present Manusmrti, though the earlier books cannot be held to have known a Sastra of Manu even when they employ such expressions as ^ Manu said.” He thinks that there was a floating mass of verses containing philosophical and other lore attributed to the mythical Manu on which the earlier books of the Mahabharata and the Manusmrti both drew and that the matter that is common to both works was not borrowed from any systematic treatise. Bihler accepts this view with the slight modi- fication that the floating mass of verses was not all attributed to Manu (SBE vol. 25 p. XC). Before giving my individual views on this vexed question as against the array of such eminent scholars as Buhler and Hopkins some facts must be clearly set forth. The Mahabharata is nowhere mentioned by name in the Manusnmnrti though the word ^ itihisa ”( in the plural ) occurs in Manu (III. 232). The Manusmyti mentions many historical and legendary personages, about most of whom the Mahabharata contains similar stories. The following are the persons so mentioned in the Manusmirti. Angirasa (in II. 151-152, addressing his elders as ‘ putrakah ° ), Agastya ( V 22, in connection with sacrificing animals ), Vena, Nahusa, Sudas Paijavana and Nimi (all in VII. 44, coming to grief through insolence ), Prthu, Manu, Kubera and the son of Gadchi ( VII. 42, benefiting by their gaod conduct), Vasistha (in VIII. ric, taking an oath before king Paijavana), Vatsa (in VIII. 116, under- going fire ordeal ), Aksama and Sarangi ( in FX. 23, though of low birth respectively were united to Vasistha and Mandapala ), Daksa (in IX. 128-129, gave his daughters to Dharma, Kagyapa and Soma), Ajigarta( in X, 105, who was ready to sacrifice his own son ), Vamadeva (in X, 106, desired dog’s flesh to save his life ), Bharad- vaja ( in X. 107. who accepted the gift of many cows ), Visvamitra (in ॐ. 108, who took from a candala’s hand a dog’s leg ). Prthu is also mentioned (in IX. 44) as the husband of the earthand in IX. 314 Brahmanas are credited with having made fire all-devourer, the ocean undrinkable and the waning ( pthisical ). moon to wax. Most of the names mentioned here go far back into Vedic antiquities. $1. The Manusmrit 1§3 For example, Vasistha’s oath occurs in Rgveda (VII. 104. 15293) and the Brhaddevata ( VI. 32-34), Ajigarta figures in the Aitareya- brahmana ( VII. 16 ) and Angirasa’s story occurs in the Tandya- maha-brahmana ( 13. 3. 24 2). Besides the Manusmrti does not say that the stories are taken from the great epic. The Mahabharata also was not the first to originate these stories but is only a storehouse and encyclopaedia of the numerous popular traditions that were current in ancient India. When our Manu ( 9. 227 ) says that gambling was seen to have produced in former ages deep-rooted enmities, it is unnecessary to suppose that there is a reference to the Mahabharata, for from Vedic times the evil effects of gambling were known (vide Rgveda X. 34) and even the Mahabharata contains the same verse ( Udyoga 37. 19 ), though this fact was not noticed by Buhler. On the other hand there are numerous passages in the Mahabharata scattered over almost all the parvans, where occur such expressions as, ‘ Manur-abravid, ’ ‘ the rajadharmas of Manu, ’ ^ the Sastra of Manu’ etc. Some of these passages agree with the extant Manusmrti, while some do not. Besides there are hundreds of verses in the Mahabharata that are identical with the verses of the Manusmrti, though they are not expressly attributed to Manu. Dr. Buhler says that in the Vana, Santi and Anuésasana parvans alone he could identify either wholly or partly 260 verses with those of our Manu. What then is the conclusion ? Prima facte it should be, on account of all these abovementioned facts, against the Mahabharata and in favour of the Manusmrti being the earlier of the two. Hopkins at all events holds that the Anusasana-parva knew a Manusmrti essentially the same as we have now. Bithler expresses himself more cautiously and says that the Santi and AnuSasana parvans knew a Manava-dharmaégastra closely connected with the extant one, though not identical. Both are agreed that the earlier books when they speak of Manu are either referring to the Manava-dharmasatra or to the floating mass of popular verses, but not to our Manu. We must now closely examine the data. The Anusasana-parva distinctly speaks of ‘a §Astra declared by Manu.’ In the Santiparva ॐ भया मुरीय GQ! यातुधानो अस्मि &०. ॐ मनुनाभितितं शासं यच्चापि कुङगन्दन । भगु. 47, 38. He Ds 204 | {54 History of Dharmatistra are quoted two slokas ‘ sung by Manu in his own dharmas,’ one of which is identical with Manu95 ( 9. 321 ). In another place the Santiparva speaks of the ‘ rajadharmas of Pracetasa Manu’ and quotes two verses therefrom.?9§ In the Dronaparva (7. 1) ‘ Manavi artha- vidya ’ is referred to ( vide note 272 above ) and in Vanaparva the rajadh ae as proclaimed by Manu are referred to ( vide note 272 above 9, In another places, the words ‘ Manu Svayarhbhuva said ’ occur ( ९, g. Santi 21. 12, Anugasana 114. 12, Vanaparva 180. 34-35, Adiparva 73. 9, 120. 32-36, Udyoga 37. 1-6). In most cases the words ‘ Manu said occur’ without the appellation ‘Svayarhbhuva’ or ‘Pracetasa’ ( €. ह. Santi 78. 31, 88. 14-16, 121. 10-12, 152. 14, 152. 30, 266. $ ; Anugasana 44. 18 and 23, 65. 1 and 3, 67. 19, 68. 31, 88. 4, 115. 52-53 ; Vanaparva 32. 39, Udyogaparva 40. 9-10, Adiparva 41. 31, 74. 39 ). The words ‘ Manor-anusasanam’ occur in a few cases as in AnuSasana 61. 34-35. Hopkins says that the words ^ the astra of Manu ° occur only in the AnuSasana-parva and so only that parvan knew the Manusmrti, while in the other parvans we have the expression ‘ Manu said,’ and therefore these other books did not know the Manusmrti but are only referring to floating verses attri- buted to the mythical Manu. This, however, is not a reasonable conclusion. The words ‘ sastra of Manu’ occur only once even in the Anusasana, while in about ten places in the same parvan we come across only the words ‘Manu said’. If the words ‘ Manu said’ in the AnuSasana indicate in the AnuSdsana a reference to the extant Manusmrti, there is no cogent reason why the same words 1n other parvans should not be regarded as referring to the Manusmrti. Besides in the Santiparva also we meet with the words ‘ Dharmas or rajadharmas of Manu ° and in Adiparva the word ‘dharma-darSane’ (120. 32). That 15 obviously a reference to some*work of Manu. Hopkins further says ( Great Epic of India, p. 21) that all the EEE RE ee क~ te गि ति 1 71 295 मनुना चेव राजेन्द्र गीनौ श्लोको महत्मना । धर्मेषु खेषु कोरष्य इदि तौ कर्तुमर्हसि ॥ अद्भ्योभिबेह्यतः are sears तेषां सर्वगं तेजः स्वासु योनिषु शाम्यति ॥ अयौ हन्ति यदूश्मानमभ्निना वारि हन्यते । बह्म च क्षत्रियो ae तदा सीदन्ति ते अयः ॥ शान्ति ० 56. 28-25. 996 प्राचेतसेन मनुना श्लोको चेमावुदाहृतौ । राजधर्मेषु राजेन्द्र॒ तादिहेकमनाः शृणु । षडेतान्पुरुषो जद्याद्विननां नावमिवाम्मलति । अप्रवक्तारमाचायैमनधीयानमृत्विजम्‌ A अरक्षितारं राजानं भार्या चाप्रियवादिनीम्‌ । प्रामका्मं च गोपालं वनकामं च नापितम्‌ ॥ शान्ति, 57. 43-45, - $1. The Manusmrii 155 express citations of Manu in the Anugasana, except one, agree very closely with our Manu, while in the other parvans the citations agree only up to one-third or one-half. In the first place I demur to the latter statement. The agreements of the citations in the other books are as close and almost as frequent as in the AnusSasana, €. g. excepting Santi 21. 12 and 57. 43-45 all citations of Manu therein, referred to above, agree closely with Manu 7.89, 9. 225-26, 9. 17-19 and 27, 6. 33 and 81, 71. 259-60, 5. 43 and 45 and 48-49. The same is the case with the few citations of Manu in the Vanaparva. Bithler says that the Mahabharata knew only of the dharmasatras. But there is positively not one express citation attributed by name tothe well-known writers of dharmasitras, such as Gautama, Baudhiayana, .Apastamba, Vasistha or Sankha-Likhita. That the Mahabharata knew several dharmafastras is clear from over a dozen references to dharmaéastras, often in the plural ( e. g. Santi 167. 4, 298. 40, 341. 74; AnuSasana 19. 89, 45. 17-20, Vanaparva 207. 83, 293. 35, 313. 105 ; Adiparva 3. 32 and 77 etc. ). The only place where a sitra- kara is cited on matters of dharma is Anu. 19.6; but no name is mentioned.?9?7_ Hastisatra, ASvasitra are mentioned in Sabha 5. 20, but no‘dharmasitra or Nitisitra occurs any where. On the other hand Buhler is: not” prepared to admit that the views expressly attributed to Manu in the Mahabharata are taken from a treatise and refers them to a floating mass of verses the authorship of which was unknown and?was fathered upon the mythical Manu. Distrust of ancient Indian authors could-go no further. Bithler’s assumptions are, to say the least,.gratuitous and are prompted by his unwilling- ness to assign an early date to a versified smrti of Manu. Not only are there identical verses in Manu and the Mahabharata, but some verses of the latter ( e.g. Udyoga 35. 31 and Santi 111. 66 ) occur in the Naradasmrti: (pp. 103 and 26 respectively ). In my humble opinion the following seems to be the relation of the Maha- bharata and the Manusmrti. I must state frankly that it isa mere theory, a conjecture which’ may. be taken for what it is worth. Long before the 4th century ए. C., there was a work on Dharmasiastra composed. by or attributed to Svayarhbhuva Manu. This work was most probably in*verse. There was also another work on Raja- dharma attributed to Pracetasa Manu, which also was prior to the [नी ब EE 1 + णीती 297 अनृताः fata इत्येवं सूत्रकारो SAAT | aye 19.6; compare मननु 9.18. निरिश्वरिया छमन्त्राश्च ज्ियोनृतमिति स्थितिः | 146: History of, Dharmatigira 4th century B. C. It is not unlikely that instead of there being two, works there was one comprehensive work embodying rules on, dharma as well as politics. There is one circumstance that points in this direction. The Mahabharata quotes a saying (vacana) of, Pracetasa whicn is almost the same as our Manu?9* (3. 54). It is to these works ( or work ) that Yaska, Gautama, Baudhayana, and Kautilya refer whenever they cite the opinions of Manu or the. Manavas. The Mahabharata also ( particularly in the earlier, portions ) probably refers to the same. This work was the Original kernel of the present Manusmrti. Then between. 2nd century 2. C. and 2nd century A. D. the Manusmrti was finally recast, probably by Bhrgu. That work must have compressed the older works in some cases and expanded it in others. This hypothesis would explain why some of the verses and views quoted as Manu’s occur in the extant Manusmrti and why some do not.?99_ In my opi- nion the extant Mahabharata is later than the extant Manusmrti. When Narada mentions the tradition that Sumati Bhargava compressed the vast work of Manu into 4000 verses, he is somewhat obscurely. hinting at the truth. The extant Manusmpti contains only about. 2700 verses. Narada probably arrives at the larger figure by including. the verses attributed to Vrddha-Manu and Brhan-Manu. The in- fluence of the Manusmrti spread even beyond the confines of India. In A. Bergaigne’s ‘Inscriptions Sanscrites de Campa et du. Cambodge’ (p. 423 ) we have an inscription in which occur verses,?9* one of which is identical with Manu (II. 136 ) and the other is a summary of Manu ( III. 77-80 ). ४98 प्राचेतसस्य वचनं कीतयन्ति पुराविदः । यस्याः Raa ज्ञातयो न स विक्रय; । अहेणं तक्कृमारीणामानेक्ंस्यतमं हि तत्‌ ॥ अनुशासन. 46. 1-2, 299 It is to be noted that so early a writer as शुन्तरक्षित in ४15 qraqyag ( कारिका 3584, ©. 0. 8.) expressly attributes the verse ( पुरणं मानवो धमः साङ्गो Feber । आज्ञासिदानि चत्वारि न इन्त sala हेतुभिः ) to मनु which was not commented upon by मेधातिभि and later commentators. शान्तरक्षित flourished about 750 A. D. i. ®, a century earlier than मेधाोधि, 2998 आचायैवदर गृहृस्थोपि माननीयो qua । अभ्यागतगुणानां च परा वियेति. मानवम्‌ ॥ वित्तं बन्धुर्वयः कमे विया भवति पञ्चमी । एतानि मान्यस्थानानि गरीबो यदयदु्तरम्‌ ॥ . The latter is मनु II. 136 and the former summarisee TII. 77-80. मनु 80 The Burmese are governed in modern times by the dhammatbats; which are based on Manu. Vide Dr. Forchhammer’s essay on the. sources and development of Burmese Law ( 1885, Rangoon ) Dr. E. C. G. Jonker ( Leyden 1885 ) wrote a dissertation on ap. ald Javanese lawbook compared with Indian sources of law like the. Manusmrti ( which is still used as a lawbook in the island. of Bali.), Manu had numerous commentators. As to Medhatithi, Govindaraja and Kullika, vide below sections 63, 76, 88: Besides these Narayana, Raghavananda, Nandana and Ramyr candra also wrote commentaries on Manu. Mr. Mandlik: published all these commentaries. Dr. Jolly published (in 1885 for Bengal Asiatic Society ) extracts from all these commentaries (except Kullika’s and Raimacandra’s ) and from an anonymous ixashmirian commentary on the first three chapters. Asahdya seems. to have written a commentary on Manu ( vide below section 58 ), The Vivadaratnakara quotes a commentary on Manu by Udayakara. (pp. 455, 560, 583, 590). The same work seems to suggest that Bhaguri wrote a commentary on Manu.3°° For the predecessors of: Medhatithi vide sec. 63. Kullaka on Manu 8. 184 tells us that Bhojadeva arranged the four verses of Manu 8. 181-184 in a particular manner and therefore suggests that Bhojadeva probably. commented on Manu. He also names a commentator Dharanidhara, on Manu 2. 83 and says that he was later than Medhatithi. He is also referred to elsewhere by Kullaka (on Manu 4. 50 ). The commentator Narayana is certaigly earlier than 1600. A. 0, as his commentary is cited by Bhattoji in his commentary on the: Caturvirnsgatimata ( vide p. 61 of the Benares Sanskrit Series edition, 1907 ). A ms. of Narayana’s commentary was written in 1497 A. D.. and he appears to have been quoted by Rayamukuta in 1431 A. D. (Jolly in R.und.S. p.31). He is later than Govindaraja and flourished between 1100 and 1300 A.D. Raghavananda mentions by. name Medhatithi, Govindaraja, Narayana, and Kullaka and so is later: than about 1400 A.D. When Nandana flourished it is difficult to say. But he is a late writer. There are several other commentators, 300 On मनु 8. 198 the विवादुरत्ताक्रर ( P- 104) remarks कृट्पतर्कारस्त्‌ भपसरत्य- . नेन स्वामिनः सकाशादनामति प्रति्रहादिर्धनोपायः अपसरः स न वियते यस्व तथा । एतस्च भागुरिमेधातिधिदृततिकाराणामनुमतमिम्या। 158 History of Dharmattsira mentioned in the catalogues of mss. who may be passed over for want of space. Vigvaripa (on Yaj. I. 69), the Mitaksara, the Smpticandrika, the Parasaramadhaviya and other works quote dozens of verses from Vrddha-Manu on ahnika, vyavahara, and prayascitta. The Mitaksara (on ४३}. III. 20 ) and other works cite a few verses from Brhan- Manu. No independent works going under these names have yet been unearthed. Those works, if they ever existed independently, appear to have been later than our Manu. For example, our Manu is silent about the widow’s right to inherit to her husband, but Vrddha- Manu recognises the right of a chaste widow to take the entire wealth of her husband ( Mit. on ४४]. II. 136); similarly Brhan- Manu (according to the Mit. ) seems to refer to Manu’s view about the meaning ^ samanodaka’ ( Manu 5. 60 ) and modifies it. It is not unlikely that those verses which were not recognised as Manu’s by ancient commentators like Medhatithi and were yet found in the mss. of the Manusmrti were regarded as Vrddha- or Brhan- Manu. 32. The Two Epics The two epics, particularly the Mahabharata, contain in numerous places passages bearing on dharmasastra and are relied upon as authoritative Smrtis in later works. The Mahabharata is styled a dharmasastra in the Adiparva ( 2. 83 ). The Ramayana is pre-eminently a kavya; yet on account of its noble ideals it was almost 4 popular as the Mahabharata and is relied upon as a source of dharma in the nibandhas though muci less frequently than the other great epic. The Ayodhya-kanda (canto 100 ) and the Aranya-kinda ( 33 ) contain: disquisitions on politics and state administration. The Smrticandrika (I. p. 57 ) quotes the well-known verse of the Ramayana (Sundara 59. 31) about cessation of study on the first day of a month.s°" The Smpticandrika (I. p. 193 and III. p. 416 ) quotes two verses on tarpaya and sraddba from the Ramayana.’°? The Haralata ( pp. 64 and 152 ) quotes SO) सा amare तन्वङ्गी तद्धियोगास्च कर्शित । प्रतिपत्पाठशीलस्य वियेव aqat गत। ॥ $08 पाद्शोचमनभ्यङ्गं Reet च ATT सर्वे नत्र जले तुभ्यं यश्च ॒शादुमदुक्िणम्‌ ॥ शदेयदरो्ष्ये रामस्तपैयते पितृन्‌ । यदन्नः पुरषो भवति तदुश्ना्तस्य देवताः ॥ The second verse is almost the same as Ayodhy& 103, 30 and AyodhyS 104. 15 calls it लोकिकी भ्रति 8%. The Two Epics 189 verses from the Ramayana. Apararka on Y4j. III. 8-10 quotes four verses from the Ramayana on sorrow for the dead. For considerations of space it is impossible to enter into any discussion as to the age of these two epics, as to the earlier and later strata in them and other allied questions. These questions are passed over here as more appropriate to separate treatises on the epics. The following works will give some idea of the problems connected with these two great heirlooms of Indian antiquity :— Das Mahabharata seine Entstehung, sein Inhalt, seine Form, by Oldenberg ( Gottingen, 1922); Das Mahabharata als Epos und Rechtsbuch, by Dahlmann (Berlin 1895 ) ; Zur Geschichte und Kritik des Mahabharata by Holtzmann ( Kiel, 1892-94); Maha- bharata, acriticism by Mr. €. V. Vaidya (1903); das Ramayana, Geschi- chte und Inhalt, by Dr. Jacobi ( Bonn 1893 ); The Riddle of the Ramayana by Mr. C. V. Vaidya (1906, Bombay ). In these pages the Bombay oblong edition of the Mahabharata with the com. of Nilakantha has been used. In the following table an attempt is made, though not exhaustive, to indicate where dharmasastra topics occur in the Mahabharata. Abbiseka (coronation)—-Santi 40. ' Arajaka (evils of anarchy)--Santi 67. Abimnsa—Santi 264 and 266. Asrama-dharmas. - Santi 61, 243- 246. dcara~-Anusasana 104. Asvamedhika 45. Apad-dharma --Santi 131 ff. Upavasa—Anu. 106-107. Gostuti—-Anu. 51 and 73. Tirthas—Vanaparva 82 ff, Anu- Sasana 25-26, Salya. Dandastuti—Santi 15, 121, 268, 295. Dana—Vanaparva 186, Santi 235, __ Anu. 57-99. Dayabbaga—Anu. 45 and 47. Putras (of several kinds)—Anu. 48-49. Prayascitta—Santi 34-35, 165 (338). Brahmana’s means of subsistence- Santi 76-78 Bhaksyabhaksya—Santi 36, 78 ; Rajaniti—Sabha 5, Vana 150, Udyoga 33-34, Santi 59-130 and 298, Asramavasika 5-7. Varnadharma—Santi 60 and 297, mixed castes—Santi 65, 297 and Anu. 48-49. Vivaha—Anu. 44-46. Sraddha—Striparva 26-27, Anu. 87-95- SH History ‘of Dharmattiira The following table will give some idea of the topics of dharma- Sastra that are dwelt upon in the Ramayana, though briefly. The Gujarati Press Edition ( 1915-20 ) is referred to— ~~ ^ ERR Ty -०७०२० ० ert 8 तिथ 6704192 15, ,„ 4० (0-14) Yuddha 128. » 4 (-6) Arajaka—Ayodhya 67. Yuddha 17-18 and Patakas—Kiskindha 17 (36-37), » $3. | 18 (22-23) &c. Sraddha—Ayodhya 77 Rajadharma—Bala 7, | is 103 Ayodhya 100, a III (104-120) Aranya* 6 (11-14) = Satyaprasamsa—Ayodhya 109. » 9(2-9) — Stridharma—-Ayodhya 24, 26-27, 33 29, 39, 117-18, 33, The Puranas. The Puranas as a class of literature existed from very ancient times. Tai. Ar. (II. 10) speaks of ^ Brahmanas, Itihasas, Puranas, and Naragarhsi gathas.”3°) In the Chandogya Upanisad (VII. 1. 2 and 4 ) “ itihasa-purana” is spoken of as the fifth Veda and the Brha- daranyaka (IV. 1. 2) speaks of ‘ Itihasa and Purana.” The Gau- tama Dh. ऽ, (8. 6 and 11. 19) refers to “ itihasa” and ‘ Purana. ” It is not unlikely that there was originally a single work called Purana. The words of the Matsya that in former ages there was a single Purana probably embody a tradition that has a substratum}* of truth. The Mahabhasya of Patafijali (vol. I. page 9.) speaks of Purana in the singular. The Ap. Dh. S. quotes the views of a Purana, twice cites two verses froma Purana, and summarizes the view of a Bhavisyat-purana.}°s The quotations show that the Purina or [111 1 । ~~~ » +~ mer epee 903 ब्राह्मणानीतिहर..¶ पुराणानि कल्यान्गाथा नाराशंसी; Ke. 304 पुराणमेकमेवासीत्‌ तद्‌ कस्पान्तरेनघ | मत्स्यपुराण chap. 53 ( 21800887: 171५ ed.). 905 यो ह्विसाथममिक्रान्तं हस्ति मन्युरेव मन्य स्पृशति न॒ तस्मिन्‌ दोष इति पुर णे । आप. ध. सू. 1. 10. 29. 7; अथ पराणे श्लोकावुदाहन्ति । उयतामाहृतां भिक्षां १ स्नादपवेदिताम्‌ । भोज्यां मेने परनापतिरपि दुष्छतकारिणः ॥ न तस्य पितरोश्नन्ति दश वषाणि प्च च।न च हृष्य वहत्यमि्स्नामभ्यधिमन्यते ॥ इति । आप. ध,च. I. 6.19. 15; अथ पुराणे श्छोकवुदाहरन्ति । अश्टाशीतिसहल्लाणि ये प्रजामीषिरषेयः | द्षिणिनार्यम्णः पन्थानं ते श्मशनानि भेजिरे ॥ अष्टशी.„. sont नेषिर्षयः । Te dives पन्थानं तेऽमृतत्वं हि कल्पते ॥ आप. ध, दु. 11. 9, 88. $ पुनः सरग वाथा भवन्तीति मविष्यशुराणे । आप, ध, सु, 1, 9.४५. 6. [29 17 षि) 7 18 भत 1 97) eee et 1 $3. The Puranas 161 70191025 contained verses and were composed in a somewhat archaic language. The extant Puranas are recasts made of the ancient Puranas during the first centuries of the Christian era, when there was a revival and restatement of the ancient Brahmanical religion, philosophy and literature after the onslaughts of Buddhism and Jainism had abated in their strength and fury. The Mahabharata (Vana. 191. 16) speaks of the Purana promulgated by Vayu (i. e. the Vayupurina). Bana in his Harsacarita refers to the recitation of the Vayupurana. Kumiarilabhatta in his Tantravartika(vide J. ए. B. R. A. S. for 1925, p. 122) refers to the subjects dealt with by many of the extant puranas and quotes passages that occur in the Visnu and Markandeya puranas. Thus it is clear that at any rate some of the extant purinas, if not all, are much earlier than the 6th century A. D. The orthodox number of the principal purinas is 18 and there are 18 Upapuranas also. There is considerable divergence about the names of the 18 principal puranas. For example, the Matsya- purana (chap. §3 ) enumerates them as follows :—Brahma, Padma, Visnu, Vayu, Bhagavata, Naradiya, Markandeya, Agneya, Bhavisya, Brahmavaivarta, Linga, Varaha, Skanda, Vamana, Karma, Matsya, Garuda and Brahmanda. The Visnu-purina (3.6) on the other hand omits Vayu from the above list and adds Saiva. The Sarasvati- vilasa ( p. 14 ) follows the Visnu-purina. Vide Bhagavata-purana XII. 13. 4-8 and commentary thereon for the Puranas and Upa- puranas. Among comparatively early commentators and writers of digests, itis Apararka, Ballalasena and Hemadrithat quote most profusely from the puranas as sources of dharma. We saw above (p. 146) that Kullaka describes passages of the Bhavisya-purana as glosses on Manu. The Matsya-purana is pre-eminently a work containing much dharmasastra material. For example, chapters 16-22 deal with Sraddha, chapters 55-57 and 59-82 with vratas, chap. 54, 83, 278 with gifts, chap. 93 with Santis, chap. 102 with tirthas. Similarly in chapters 216-243 the Matsya speaks of rajadharma. The Visnupurana ( in III, chap. 8-16) contains a good deal of information on the duties of the varnas and asramas, nitya and naimittika acts, good manners for a house- तला, the five great yajfias, Jatakarma and other sathskaras, impu- on death, éraddha &c. Visnudharmottara (VenkateSvara Press) 2 and khanda contains several chapters dealing with matters of 9 De 21. 62 History of Dhatmatisira dharma, €. g. chap. 24 gives the qualifications of state officers, chap. 65-72 speak of rajadharma, expedients of policy, punishments, 73-74 deal with prayascittas, 75 with impurity on death and birth, 79 with purification of dravyas, 80-81 with the four varnas and mixed castes, 60 with various purely legal matters. The Agni- purina also in chapters 220-225, 227, 233-242 contains a disquisi- tion on rajadharma. Almost the whole of the vyavahara section in the Yajiavalkyasmfti occurs in chapters 253-258 of the Agnipurana ( Anandagrama edition ) and many verses in chap. 253 are identical with verses of the Narada-smrti. The Garudapurana (chap. 93-106) contains about 400 verses that are taken from the first and third sections of Yajiavalkya though not in the same order. The chronology of the puranas is, like that of the epics, a subject full of perplexing problems and is hence passed over here. The annexed table will give an idea as to what topics of dharmasastra are dealt with in the principal puranas. The constitution of the original text of the puranas is a Herculean task which has not yet been attempted. Not only is there difference of opinion among the purinas about the names of the 18 Maha- Puranas, but there is divergence as regards the extent of the several puranas. For example, the commentator Visnucitta of the Visnu- purana says (on III. 6. 20-22 ) that the extent of the Visnupurana is variously given at 8000, 9000, 10000, 22000, 24000, but that he comments on a text of 6000 glokas only. The Agnipurana (272. 10-11 ) says that it contains 12000 Slokas, while the Bhagavata ( XII. 13 ), the Brahmavaivarta, the Padma (Adi. 62 ) say that it contains 15400 Slokas and the Skanda (V. 3) and the Matsya 53 give the extent of the Agni as 16000. The, Karma, according to the Bhagavata contains 17000, according to the Matsya 18000 and only 8000 according to the Agni ( 272. 19). Though there is a remarkable continuity in India as to religious thoughts and practices, yet the popular religion of‘modern Hindus is pre-eminently pauranic. The puranas contain thousands of slokas on dharmasastra matters, they are a rich mine awaiting exploration by careful students of social and religious questions and shed a flood of light on the development of feligious beliefs and practices in medieval and modern India. The, > fore the re-constitution of the text of the puranas is a problem जुखरे- wil] have to be tackled in the near future. Besides the several पनः सगे 88. The Purduas 168 एप) 25, eighteen Upapuranas also are enumerated in some of the Puranas. Vide Garuda (223. 17 ff), Skanda ( V. 3. chap. I. 45-62 and VII. I. chap. 2 ), Padma ( Patala-khanda chap. 111. 95-98 ) and Matsya (53.59 ff) for Upapuranas.3°5* Besides the Mahapur4nas and Upapuranas, there are other works of the purana class such as (०६066, Maudgala, Devi, Kalki &८ The Padmapurana ( Uttara- khanda chap. 263) divides the 18 purdnas into three groups, sativika, rajasa and tamasa, and says that the Visnu, Naradiya, Bhagavata, Garuda, Padma, and Varaha are sativika. The Matsya (53) also speaks of this division. The Lingapurana (39. 63-66) speaks of the twenty expounders of dharma just as Yajiavalkya does and quotes the two verses in the form in which the Mit. presents them (and not Visvarapa ), while the Padma ( Uttarakhanda 263. 86-89) divides the eighteen smrtis into three groups of sattutka, 1214504 and tamasa.3°s* [ए would be quite clear to any reader of the purinas and the smrtis that most of the former in their extant form are later than the smptis of Manu, Yajiiavalkya, Parasara, Narada &c. The following table will give some idea asto how the eighteen principal puranas are rich in dharmagastra material. Besides the eighteen principal puranas, the Kalika-purana ( Venkatesvara press ed.) and the Saura-purana ( Anandagrama ed. ) have been drawn upon. The Anandasrama edition of the Agni and Padma, the Nirnayasigara edition (1905 ) of the Bhagavata, the Poona edition (1870 Jagaddhitecchu Press) of the Matsya have been referred to here and the Venkatesvara editions of all the other puranas. 9055 अन्यान्युपपुराणानि मुनिभिः कथितानि तु । आयं सनत्कुमारोक्तं नारसिंहमथापरम्‌ # तृतीयं स्काम्द्‌-( नान्द्‌ { ee Sater तु भाषितम्‌ । चतुर्थं शिवधममाख्यं स्यान- न्दीश्वरभाषितम्‌ ॥ इरयाससोक्तमाश्यर्य नारदोक्तमतः परम्‌ । कापिलं वामनं चव तथेवोशनसेरितम्‌ ॥ बह्माण्डं वाणं चाथ कालिकाह्वयमेव च । मवरं तथा साम्बं सोरं सर्वार्थसंचयम्‌ । पराशरोक्तमपरं मारीचं भागेवाह्वयम्‌ "॥ गङ्ड. 225. 17-20. 305४ anes चेवं ह्रीत ध्यासं पाराशरं तथा । भारद्वाजं कश्यपं च सारिवका मुक्तेदाः शमाः ॥ याल्लदल्क्यं auld HAL दाक्षमेव च । कात्थायनं Ford च राजसाः स्वगेदुाः शुमाः ॥ गोतमं eee च सावत च यमं स्मृतम्‌ । शाङ्खं चोरानसं देवि तामसा निरयमदुः ॥. 164 Acara—Brahma 113 ; Garuda 50; Kalika 88 ; Karma ( uttarar- dha) 13; Linga (parvardha) 89 ; Markandeya 31 ; Narada (purvirdha) 26 ; Padma (Adi 52-56, patala- khanda 9, srstikhanda 46) ; SkandaI (Kaumarika 41), III. ( dharmaranya 6 ), IV. I ( parvardha 38, 40); Siva (kailasasarhhita) chap. 18-20 (on वत्वा of yati, making of a disciple ; yogapatta); Vayu 16; Visnu III. r1r-12. Abnika—Agni 155 ; Brahmavai- varta ( Brahmakhanda ) 26 ; Garuda 50 and 213-217; Karma (uttarardha) 18-19; Linga 26; Markandeya 27 ; Narada ( pirvardha ) 27 ; “ Padma (sfsti 46, uttara 233); Skanda IV. I ( purvardha ) chap. 35 and III. 2 ( dharma- ranya-khanda ) chap. 5. Asanca—Agni 157-158 (both kinds, on death and birth); Brahma 113 (on birth ); Garuda (preta-khanda)chap.5, Karma (uttarardha chap. 23); Linga ( purvardha 89). . Asramadharmas——-Agni 160-161 ; Bhagavata VII. 12 and 13, XI. 17 ; Brahma 114 ; Garuda | 49; Karma ( uttarardha )। 14-16 (brahmacarin and gr- hastha) and 27-28 ( vanapras- tha and yati); Markandeya 25- 26; Narada (parvardha 27 and 43); Padma (adikhanda 58-6 9 History of Dharmatastra for vanaprastha and yati, bhamikhanda 59 for grhastha, srstikhanda 15 ); Saura 17, 20 ( vanaprastha and sarhnya- sin >); Skanda IV. I (pirvar- dha) chap. 41 (vanaprastha and yati); Visnu III. 9. Bhaksyabhaksya— Brahmavaivarta ( brahmakhanda 27, 4th khanda, uttarardha chap. 85); Kurma (uttarirdha chap. 17); Padma (adikhanda 56). Brahmiana—vide under varua- dharmas ; greatness of -Padma (brahma- khanda chap. 14 and _sfsfi- khanda chap. 45 ); duties of -Kirma (uttarardha chap. 12 and 19); Saura 18 ; who is a worthy-Padma ( srsti1s ); means of liveli- hood for -Kurma (uttarirdha 25 ), Padma (srsti 45 ) Dana—vide under pratistha and utsarga. Agni 209-213 ( mahadanas ); Bhavisya IV. 150 ff ; Brahma 109 ( specially annadana ); Brahmavaivarta ( prakrti- khanda 27); Garuda 51; Kuarma,uttarirdha 26 (4 kinds, nitya, naimittika, kamya, vi- mala); Linga, uttarardha 28 (16 mahadanas); Matsya 81-91, 205-206, 274-289 ( 16 maha- danas); Narada (purvardha 13 and 31, uttarardha he a Padma (adi 57, bhamikhay 39-40 and 94, brahmakh at 99, The Purnas 4s 24, अ 45 on godana and 75, | uttara 27 on annadana, 28 | and 33 );Saura 9-10; Siva (Umasarhhita chap. 11 and 14); Skanda I (Kauméarika-khanda 2 for names of famous do- nors), III]. 2 (dharmaranya 34), VIE. I. 5 and 208; Varaha 99-111. Dravyasuddhi—Agni 156; Bha- gavata XI. 21; Brahmarz3 ; Litga (parvardha 89) ; Mar- kandeya 32. Gotra and Pravara—Matsya 194- 201 ; Skanda III. 2 (dharma- ranya-khanda) 9. Kalisvarnpa—vide under Yuga- dbarmas. Brahma 122-123 ; Brah- manda ( anusangapada chap. 31 ); Brahmavaivarta ( pra- krtikhanda7 ); Karma 30; Linga 40; Naradiya (parvar- dha 41 ); Skandal (Kauma- rika-khanda chap. 40 and 218- 248), II (purusottamamaha- tmya chap, 39 ), VI. 272; Vayu I. 58. Kalivarjya—Narada (parvardha chap. 24). Karmavipaka—Brahma_ 108 ; Br- ahmavaivarta ( prakrtikhanda 26 and 28 and 4th khanda uttarardha 85); Markandeya 15; Padma (Brahma-khanda 5, patalakhanda 48); Vamana 12. ukas—vide under pétakas. Agni 203 and 371; Brahma 20 (25 names given), 105 (22 names); Brahmavaivarta, prakrtikhanda 29 (for names of 86 narakakundas) and 33; Padma (uttara, chap. 227 for names of 140); Siva (uma- samhita chap. 8 for 28 nara- kas and chap. 16); Skanda I (kaumarika-khanda 39 ), VI. 226-227, Visnul. 6. and II. 6. Niti—vide under rajadharma. Garuda 108-114 (summary of Brhaspati-niti ) and 115 (summary of Saunaka). Patakas—vide under prayascitea Agni 168 (mahapatakas and lesser sins); Brahma 20 and 105-106 ; Markandeya 12-14; Narada (pirvardha 15); Siva (umasamhita 5 for mahapa-~ takas and 6 for upapatakas). Pratistha—Agni 38-106 (build- ing and consecration of tem- ples, idols of Visnu &c); Garuda 45-48, Padma (utta- rakhanda chap. 122 and 127 for Salagrama) ; Matsya 258- 270 ; Siva (vidyesvara~satn- hita chap. 11). Prayascitta—Agni 170-174; Bra- hmanda ( upasamharapada chap. 8); Garuda 52 (special- ly for mahapatakas) and 222; Ktrma, uttarardha 30-34; Linga 90 (for lapses of yatis); Narada, purvardha 14 and 30; Padma (brahma-khanda_ 18- 19); Saura 52; Vardha 68 6 History of Dharmattatra (for agamyagamana), 131-136 (for various lapses), 179; Vayu (parvardha 18 for lapses of yati). Rajadharma—Agni 220-242; Ka- lika 87; Markandeya 24; Matsya 216-227, 240 Samskara—vide under Vivaha also. Agni 153-154 and 166; Bhavisya 1 ( Brahmaparva chap. 3-4 and 7); Narada, pirvardha 25-26; Skanda IV. “J (parvardha 36 and 38); Visnu III. to. Santi—Agni 149, 164, 167, 259- ` 268, 290-91, 320-324; Bha- visya IV chap. 141 ff; Brah- mavaivarta IV (uttarardha chap. 82); Matsya 92-93 and 228-239 Sraddhus—Agni 117 (according to Kityayana ) and 163; Brahma 110-113, Brahmanda ( upodghatapada 9-20 ) ; Kirma, uttarairdha 20-22 ; Markandeya 27-30 ; Linga, uttarardha 45 (jivat-sraddha ); Matsya 16-22 ; Narada, pirvardha 128; Padma (‘patalakhanda 107, srsti 9-11 and 47 ); Siva ( kailasasa- samhita 21-23 ) ( about after- death rites of yati) ; Saura 19; Skanda VI. 215-225 and भा. I. chap. 205-207 ; Varaha 13-14 and 187-188 ; Vayu ( uttarardha chap. 10- 21); Visnu Hl. 13-16, Stridharma—Bhagavata VII. 11; Bhavisya I chap. 11-15; Brahmavaivarta ( brahma- khanda 9 about greatness of pati, 4th khanda, uttarardha 83 (about patt- vrata); Padma (bhamikhanda 47, patala 102, srsti 47 and 49, uttara 234 (duties of wife and co-wives); Siva ( rudrasarhe hita, Parvatikhanda 54 ); Skanda IIT. 2. (dharmaranya- khanda 7 ) Tirtha-—Agni 109-1 16 ; Bhaga- vata VII. 14; Brahma 23, 26 (Konarka in Orissa), 39 (Ekamra),".40-48 ( Jaganna- tha), 54 (Mahakala at Ujja- yini); Garuda 81-86; Kirma, pirvardha 31-35 (Benares), 36-38 (Prayaga), uttarardha 35-44; Linga, purvardha 92; Matsya 179-183 and 188-193; Naradiya, uttarardha 39-40 (Gangisnana), 45-47 (Gaya), 48-49 (Benares), 50 (Siva- lingas), 52-61 (Jagannatha), 62-81 (numerous tirthas ) ; Padma JI. 13-49, Padma, bhamikhanda 90. and 92, srstikhanda 14-15 and 18-19, 60, uttarakhanda 2, 20-25, 113, 129 (numerous tirthas named), 130-169, 195 ; Saura 67; Siva I. 12 ( kotirudra- 54111010 1-2, 8-33); Skandy 2 ar. (arunacala-mahatmya, sardha 2 ), II (purugotta gapma- $4. The Purtipas 167 mahatmya I-49 ); II. Badari-| Vivaha—vide under sarhskara. ka-mahatmya 1-8; ITT. 1; IIT 2. 31; V. 3 (Revakhanda is full of tirthas in 232 chapters ) and also VI and VII; Va- mana 33-42 and 50; Varaha 141-176 ; Vayu, _ uttarardha 43-50 ( Gaya ). Tithi—vide under vratas also. Brahma 120 (ekadaéi ); Narada, pirvardha 29 (what tithi should be taken, paravi- ddha or purvaviddha); Narada, uttarardha 2; Padma, brah- makhanda 13 (janmastami ), 15 (ekadasi); Saura 51; Varaha 23-35 (all tithis from Ist to 21112252). ‘Utsarga—(works of public uti- lity such as tanks and wells, parks, prapas &c.)--vide under dana and pratistha. Bhavisya II ; Narada, purvar- dha 13 ; Padma, srsti 54-56, uttara 28 ; Siva ( Vidyesvara- sarhhita 11 ) Varnadbarmas — Agni 151 ; Bhagavata VII. 11. and XI. 17; Brahma 114-115 3; Garuda 49; Markandeya 25; Narada, purvardha 24, 43, 59, 70; Skanda VI. 242; Visnu III. 8. mixed castes-Brahmavaivarta ( Brahmakhanda 10). Vyavahara — Agni aa Padma, uttara 223 and 232; Skanda IV, parvardha 38. Vrata—Agni 175-200, 204 (upavasa); Bhavisya I. 17 ff, IV (several hundred vratas ); Brahma 27 (upavasa) ; Brahmavaivarta ( 4th khanda, puirvardha 8 and 26 ); Garuda 116-137, Linga, parvardha 83-84; Narada, parvardha 17- 22, 110-124; Matsya 54-80, 94-100; Padma (bhami 87, brahmakhanda 3-4, 7, 11, 13, 15-16, 21-23, patalakhanda 86- 96, 108, srsti 20-24, 31, 76, 79-82, uttara 26, 31-32, 35- 65, 66-71, 78, 85, 97,125, 170, 240-41, 262; Skanda I. ( kedara 33 ), IT. 4. 1-36, IU. 5 and 7, V. I. 60-61, VI. 232- 241; Siva ( Kotirudrasamhita 38-40, Umasamhita 51 ): Varaha 39-65. 253--258 ; Skanda I. (Kaumarikakhanda) 44( eight ordeals described ) Yugadharmas—vide also under Kalisvarapa. Garuda 223; Linga 39; Matsya 141-143, 164 ; Narada, purvardha 41; Skanda VI. 272; Vayu I. 32 and 58. ` 168 History of Dharmotistra 34. The Yajnavalkyasmrti This Smrti has been published dozens of times. In the following the Nirnayasagara edition edited by Sastri Moghe ( 1892 A. D. ) has been used and the Trivandrum edition when speaking of Visvarapa. The name of Yajiavalkya is one of the most illustrious among Vedic sages. He is credited with having promulgated the White Yajurveda. In the Santiparva( chap. 312 ) we are told that there was a rupture between Vaisampayana and his pupil Yajfiavalkya and that by worshipping the Sun the latter received the revelation of the White Yajurveda, the Satapatha &c. The accounts in the Visnu ( 3. 5 ), the Bhagavata (XII. 6. 61-74) and other puranas differ somewhat from the one in the Mahabharata, but all agree on the fact of the strained relations between Yajfiavalkya and his teacher. The Satapatha Brahmana in several places alludes to the dialogues of Yajniavalkya and king Janaka of Videha on agnihotra (S. B. E. vol. 44 p. 46 ). Vide Satapatha ( ed. by Weber) XI. 6. 2, Atthe end of the Satapatha we are told that Vajasaneya Yajnavalkya promulgated the bright Yajus formulz from the Sun.3° In the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad Yajfiavalkya appears as a great philosopher teaching the recondite doctrines of Brahma and immortality to one of his two wives, the philosophically minded Maitreyi (II. 4 and IV. 5). In the same Upanisad Yajfiavalkya is represented as carrying away the one thousand cows set apart by Janaka for the most learned Brahmana (III. 1. 1-2 ) and Yajiavalkya is said to have imparted to Janaka the knowledge of the destiny of the soul after it is released from the bonds of flesh and worldly affections. Katyayana in his Vartika on Panini (IV. 3. 105 )3°7 speaks of the Brahmanas of Yajiavalkya and very heated controversies have raged round the correct interpretation of the Vartika and the Mahabhasya thereon ( vide Max Miiller’s Ancient Sanskrit Literature p. 360, Goldstticker’s Panini, p. 132 ff and S. B. E. vol. 12 pp. xxxv-xxxvir). It is to be noted that in the Yajnavalkyasmrti itselfs°® (III. 110) the He a ea tema eee य 806 आदित्यानीमानि URNA THY वाजसनेयेन याल्नवत्क्येनाख्यायन्ते | शतपथ XIV. 9. 4. 33. 807 पुराणपरोेषु ब्राह्मणकल्पेषु । पा. 111. 3. 105. 308 ज्ञेयं ारण्यकमहं यद्‌दित्यादवाप्तवान्‌ | योगशाशं न Ait ज्ञेयं योगमभी | याज्ञ, पा. 110. ~ 44. The Yajiavalkyasmrti | 169 author, whoever he may be, claims the authorship of the Aranyaka that he received from the Sun and the Yogasastra composed by him. This is simply put in to glorify the Yajiiavalkya-smrti as the work of a great and ancient sage, philosopher and yogin. From the style and the doctrines of the smrti it is impossible to believe that it was the work of the same hand that gave to the world the Upanisad containing the boldest philosophical speculation couched in the simplest yet the most effective language. Even orthodox Indian opinion was not prepared to admit the unity of authorship in the case of the smrti and the Aranyaka. The Mitaksari says at the beginning that a certain pupil of Yaj. abridged the dharmasastra in the form of a dialogue.3°9 It will be shown later on that, though the sage who promulgated the Aranyaka and the author of the smrti cannot be identical, yet the Yajnavalkya-smrti is much more closely connected with the White Yajurveda and the literature particularly belonging to it than with any other Veda. The Yajiavalkyasmyti contains (in the Nirnayasagara ed. of 1892 ) 1070 verses, while the ‘Trivandrum edition with the commentary of Visvartipa contains 1003 verses and Apararka gives 1006 (Anandasrama edition). The difference in the number is mostly due to the fact that Visvaripa in the first section on Acara omits five verses that occur in the Mitaksara.3'° As regards one of them (the verse ‘rathyakardamatoyanr J. 197 according to the Mit.) Vigvaripa notices it and says that some read it after the verse ‘mukhaja viprusa” and that it adds nothing to what precedes. Apararka explains that verse. In the second section on vyavahara Visvaripa reads verses}?! which do not exist in the Mitaksara nor in Apararka. On the other hand Visvartipa seems to doubt the authenticity of the well-known verse on re-union and reads it also | 309 याज्ञवल्क्यशिष्यः कम्वित्नश्नोत्तरखूपं याज्ञवस्क्यप्र्णीतं Taney संक्षिप्य कथयामास | 310 Viz. the verses आज्ञासप।दिनीं (1, 76), रथ्याकदेमतोयानिं (1. 197), यावद्त्सस्य पादी (1.207), ४७० 0811 १९8०8 तथाच्छाद्नद्‌ानं च (1, 2४४) and अपहृता इति तिलान्‌ (I. 234), दध्यन्नं (1. 289). 311 For example, the verse आगमेन विशुद्धेन भोगो याति प्रमाणताम्‌ | अविशृद्धागमो मोगः प्रामाण्य नाधिगच्छति । ( 7५. ०. 71.29 ) and कानि जातयः Beat गणान्‌ जनपदानपि । स्वधमोर्चितान्‌ राजा विनीय स्थापयेत्पाधे ॥ (Tri. ed. IL २4 ) do not occurin the Mit. The first is नारद ( ऋणादान 85 ) and also occurs in the अभिपुरण 258. 56-57. प्र, 2, 22. 170 History of Dharmatastra differently3'? ( anyodaryasya sathsrsti). Not only this but in some cases the arrangement of verses is not the same in both Visvarapa and the Mit.. For example, verses 14-29 of the prayascitta section present very different sequences in both. What is verse 29 in the Trivandrum edition is verse 19 in the Mit. Besides the Mit. reads one verse (III. 23 4 dantajanmanah &c. ) which is wanting in Vigvaripa and is also not commented upon by Apararka. Visvarapa adds two half verses,}*3 which do not occur in the Mit. and Apararka. There is further a good deal of variance in the readings adopted by Vigvarapa and the Mit., though the meaning is not often affected. For example, the two verses enumerating the names of writers on dharma are differently worded in एग. + But Medhatithi favours the reading of ViSvartpa.3's Visvaripa reads “‘asvattarh lokavidvistam” (I. 155 ) and notices a reading ‘“‘asvantam”, while the Mit. reads ‘‘asvargyam loka:‘&c.”. Both the Mit. and Apararka read “pita pitimaho bhrata &c.” (I. 63), while Visvaripa reads *‘pita matamaho bhrata”, remarks that “‘maitamaha” is put in earlier as a guardian for marriage for metrical reasons and then notices *¢pita pitamaho bhrata” as a various reading. Even in the days of Visvarupa there were various readings in Yaj. ( Vide com. on I. 1, 2, gr, II. 119, 179 etc. ) The Agnipurana affords an excellent check for the consideration ‘of the text of the Yajfavalkyasmrti. A good-sized monograph will be required to deal exhaustively with the questions raised by the comparison of the vyavahara portion of the Agnipurana with Yajiiavalkya’s vyavahara-kanda. I shall only briefly examine the materials and state the conclusions at which I have arrived. We know that Visvartpa, the first extant commentator of Yaj., flourish- ed about 800-825 A. D. The author of the Mitaksari flourished about 250 years later. Interesting results follow by a comparison of tle text that these two commentators had before them with the ‘12 samt पूर्ोकविवरणस्थानीयमिम श्छोकं पठन्ति अन्योदुर्यस्य संसृष्टी &०. (71. 143), 813 The two 811 ९ 6868 are बाह्वणक््य दशाहं तु भवति मरेतस्रूतकमु | (19a) and पासानारकशच्चाभ्निविषायर्डिढितां स्वयं ( 24) in Tri. ed. 814 Vide note 258 above. ॥ 815 अतः स्मतपरिगणना AZM हति xe तथा हि पे्ठनसि-वौधायन- शिष्ेरेंरप CHAT ~ भवि परचेतःपभमतयः : समयन्ते । न चं परिगणनायामन्त्माविताः । मेधा on अनै IT. 6, w 84. The Yasfavalkyasmrtt 171 Agnipurana. I shall select chap. 256 of the Agnipurama for a detail- ed examination. It contains 36 verses which all occur in Yaj. II. (verses 118-153 of Tri. ed. and verses 114-149 of the Mit. ). It is found that the Agnipurina agrees with the text of 12 verses word for word as contained in Visvaripa and 19 verses as contained in the Mit. Visvariipa puts three verses between the two verses ‘pitrdravyavinasena &c’ and ‘kramadabhyagatarh dravyarh’, while the Mit. brings the two verses together. Agnipurana agrees with Vis, In several cases the readings of the Agnipurana agree with Visva- ripa’s text and not with that of the Mit. For example, Agni. reads ‘karyah patnyah samarhsikah * with Vis. (119), reads ‘ bharya... dravyam-eva va ...putrasya cobhayoh’ with Vis. (124), reads ‘pitrdravyavinasena’ (and not ‘ °vyavirodhena’ as Mit. does ) with Vis. (122), reads ‘dadyat-cipaharec-caihSath ’ with Vis.( 142 b ), reads ‘ patitas-tatsutah klibah’ with Vis. ( 144 a), reads ‘ aprajayi- matitayiam’ with Vis. (148 ). The Agnipurina however in a far larger number of cases agrees with the readings of the Mit. Agni (256. 8) reads with the Mit. (122) ‘vibhaktesu sutojaitah savarnayarh vibhagabhak,’ Agni. (256. 10) reads ^ mataipyarhSarh samath haret’ with the Mit. (123), while Vis. (127) reads ‘ mataipyarhsarh अवात pnuyat.’ Visvaripa’s reading leaves it undecided as to what the share of the mother is to be, while the Mit. makes it definite by stating that it is equal ( to that of ason ). Agni ( 256. 12) reads ^ catus: tri-dvyeka-bhigah syuh ’and ‘vidjastu dvyekabhaginah’ with the Mit. (125); Agni. (256. 21) reads ‘-rdhabhagikarh’ with the Mit. (134). Agni. ( 256. 27 ) reads ‘ andho’cikitsyarogady4 ’ with the Mit. (140), while Vis. (144) reads ‘ rogi ca.’ The reading of the Mit. makes provision by the word ‘adya’ for other persons like deaf-mutes mentioned in other smrtis as not entitled to inherit, while Vis. has to put a forced interpretation on ‘ca’ as including such persons. The Agni (256.33) rcads ‘vyayath dadyic-ca sodayam’ with the Mit. (146 ), while Vis. (150) reads ‘dapyag-ca sodayam’. Agni (256. 36 ) reads ‘vibhagabhavana jieya grha-ksetrais-ca yautakaih’ with the Mit. (149), while Vis. ( 153 ) reads ‘°bhavanideyagrha-ksetrakayautakaih’. Here the former reading is easy and gives a complete sentence. With Vis. we have to separate ‘ °bhavana’ and ‘adeya &c.’. Besides no predicate (like jiieya or karya ) is expressly mentioned in the verse if we take the reading of Vis. and the ‘ka’ in ‘ksetraka’ is a redundancy. We find that the tendency of the readings of the Mit, is to smooth dowa 172 History of Dharmasdatra harsh or invélved constructions and that the Agnipurina presents most of the changes in the text found in the Mit. but not found in Vig. In the same direction points the fact that Agni (256. 35) reads ‘na dattarh stridhanarh yasyai’ with the Mit. (148 ) and not ‘yasy@ as Vis. (152) docs, as ‘yasyai’ is grammatically more regular than ‘yasyih’ with the form ‘dattarh’. But as against this we may note that both Vis. and Agni rcad ‘aprajiyamatitayim’, while the Mit. reads ‘atitayamaprajasi’. The reading ‘aprajasi’ is correct according to Panini( V. 4. 122) and not ‘aprajayam’. Therefore the conclusion that follows is that the text of Yaj. preserved in the Agni- puriina is intermediate between the text of Visvarapa and that of the Mitaksari. As Visvardpa flourished about 800-825 A. D., the Agni- purina represents a text of Yajiiavalkya current somewhat later 1. e. about 900 A.D. In my ‘History of Sanskrit Poetics’ ( pp. III-V ) I established, from the fact that the extant Agnipurina quotes Dandin and Bhamaha and knew the theory of dhvani, that it was composed about 900 A.D. That date is strikingly corroborated by the evidence derived from the chapters on vyavahara discussed above. It is no doubt truce that the Agni presents some readings that are found neither in Vis. nor in the Mit. For example, it reads (256. 4) ° tabhya rte ’rpayet’, while both Vis. and Mit. read ‘tibhya rte’nv- yah’. It 15 probable that this is an error of the copyists or the reading may be duc to the difficulty of understanding the meaning of ‘anvayah’ there. Agni reads ( 256. 5 ) ‘svayam-arjayet’ for *svayam ~ arjitam ' (of Vis. and Mit.), and ‘jatopi dasyarh Sidrasya’ (256. 20) for ‘Sidrena’ (of Vis. and Mit.). A detailed exa- mination of the other chapters on vyavahara will yield the same results. But it cannot be undertaken here. A few examples may however be cited. Vis. (II. 167) reads ‘palo yvesim ca te mocya daiva- rijapariplutah’, Agni (257. 14) ‘palo yesam tu te mocya daivarajapariplutah’, while Mit. ( 163 ) reads ‘palo yesim na te... tah’. Similarly Vis. (II. 179) and Agni (257.26) read ‘svakutumbavirodhena deyam’ while the Mit. (175 ) reads ‘ svam kutumbavirodhena’. Vis. (II. 203 ) reads ° galat - sabhikavrddhistu’, while both Agni (257. 49 ) and Mit. ( 199 ) read ‘ glahe Satikavrddhestu’, which certainly is an easier reading. Agni 258. 45 occurs in Mit. ( 255 ), but is wanting in Visvartipa. Yj. 1. 228 in Vis. becomes in the Mit, verse 263, Agni. following the order of Visvarapa. | 84, The Yajfavalkyasmrtt 178 The total number of verses on vyavahara in Agnipurana, chap. 253-258, 15 315. Out of this the first 31 are not taken from Y4j. All of them except the first half verse and verse 31 (chap. 253 ) occur in Narada. Of the remaining 284 verses, only 414 (Agni 253. 35, 255. 43a, 255. 49b and 50, 258. 83 ) do not occur in Yaj. (in both Vis. and Mit. ). There are also a few verses that occur in the Agnipurana and in Visvarupa, but not in the Mit. and also a few verses that are common to the Mit. and Agni but are not found in Vis. The first three verses of Yaj. Ilare compressed by the Agni- purana into 114 verses. The Garudapurina affords, like the Agnipuraina, material help towards examining the authoritativeness of the text of the first and third sections of Yij. The Agnipurana does not expressly say that it drew upon Yaj., but the Garudapurana is explicit on the point. In chap. 93. 1. it is expressly said that the dharma formerly pro- mulgated by Yajnivalkya is being narrated ‘ Yajiiavalkyena yat (yah ? ) pirvam dharmam (dharmah 2) proktam ( गद) 2) katharh Hare t tan me kathaya kesighna yatha tattvena Madhava w. Chapters 93-106 contain dharmasastra material more or less taken from the Yajiavalkysmrti. There are 376 verses in these chapters. Considera- tions of space forbid any detailed examination of this material. A few salient facts only are brought out here. Chapters 93-102 deal with the several topics ( prakaranas ) of the first kinda in the same order, the only exception being the topic of rajadharma (I. 309-368), which is omitted in the Garudapurina. Chapters 102-106 treat of topics that occur in the third kanda of ४३). and contain 121 verses only. In these chapters the order of the prakaranas in Yj. is not observed at all, but Garuda speaks of them in the following order, vinaprastha-prakarana, yati, karmavipaka, prayascitta, 4gauca and aApaddharma (the last two being the first two prakaranas in Yaj.). A feature which strikes one as regards the Garudapurina (particularly chap. 102-106) is that a few verses only of Y4j. are repeated word for word, that very often the Garuda- purana gives only a summary by omitting and transposing the words and phrases of the original and that sometimes it adds verses of itsown. This may be illustrated by what the Garuda says on vanaprastha and yati (chap. 102-103, 12 verses in all). Chap. 102 begins ‘ vinaprasth’gramarh vaksye tac-chrnvantu§ maharsayah | putresu bharyam niksipya vanam gacchet sahaiva yvau,’ The latter 174 Fitstory of Dharmafastra . half isa paraphrase of Yaj. TI. 45a. Then III. 45b-46 (+) Garuda 102. 2-3a (with slight variations), II. 47 = Garuda 102-4 b-sa; III. 48 = 3b-4a; III. 49-50 = Garuda 5b ( ‘ pakse masetha va- Sniyad-dantolakhaliko bhavet, which summarises and retains some words of the original ), IJI. 7 1 = Garuda 102. 6a (candrayani svaped+ bhumau karma kuryat phaladina, which includes a few words of III. 49b also ), III. 52 = Garuda 6b-7a (the last pada in Garuda is ‘yogabhyasat dinam mnayet’, while in Yaj. it is ‘ Saktya vapi tapas caret’), III. 53 = Garuda 02. 7. Chap. 203 contains only five verses. III. 56, 58-59 = Garuda 103. tb-ga (with variants) and then Garuda adds 144 verses which are not found in Yaj. ( viz. ‘bhavet-paramaharnso vi ekadandi yamaditah ॥ siddha-~ yogas-tyajan deham-amrtatvam-ihapnuyat | datatithipriyo jfani grhi Sraddhepi mucyate u’ ). The mere fact that a prakarana is omitted in the Garudapurana should cast no doubt on the existence of that prakarana in the original Y4j. We do not know on what principles the borrowing took place. Besides we find that such prakaranas as Vinayakasinti and grahaSanti are included in the Garuda (chap. roo-1o1 ), while rajadharma-prakarana is omitted. We know that ‘rajadharma’ figures in the sitras and Manu, but none of the ancient dharmasitras, nor the Manusmrti speaks of Vinayaka. Hence conclusions must be drawn only from what positively occurs in the Garudapurina and not from the absence of any topic in it. The Garudapurana sometimes follows the arrangement and form of the verses presented in Vis., sometimes it agrees with the Mit. and sometimes it is independent. For example, the two verses enume- rating the authors of dharmasastras (४३). 1. 4-5 = Garuda 93. 4-5) follow the readings of Vis., but not those of the Mit. In the 3rd kanda, verses 14-19 of the Mit. are differently arranged by Vis., and Vis. omits (as does Apararka also) one verse found in the Mit. (III. 23) as said above, while the Mit. omits two half verses that are found in Vié. ( vide note 313 ). The verse ‘4 danta &c.’ occurs in the Garudapurana and the two half verses in Vis. omitted by the Mit. are also omitted in Garuda. So far the Garudapurina agrees with the arrangement preserved in the Mit. But it does not agree entirely with the Mit. The verse ‘adanta &c’ is III. 23 inthe Mit. and occurs before ‘ahastvadatta® ’ but in the Garuda it occurs before ‘triratram dasaratram va’ (which is IIT. 18 in the Mit.). Besides verse 92 of the Mit. is read differently in the Garuda ( dasa dvadaga varna- $4. The Yajnavalkyasmrti 175 ham tatha paficadasaiva ca ॥ trimSad dinani ca tatha bhavati preta- sitakam ). It must therefore be said that the Garudapurina represents an intermediate stage of readings between Vis. and the Mit. As the Garudapurina was a popular work read by and recited for the benefit of slightly educated or illiterate people, it often introduces changes to suit their understanding. For example, the Mit. (I. 296 ) reads (as also Vis. ) ‘stryah somo mahiputrah soma- putro brhaspatih ’, while Garuda reads ( chap. ror. 2 ) ‘saryah somo mangalas ca budhas caiva brhaspatih,’ thus substituting the well- known words Mangala and Budha for mahiputra and somaputra. The verse ‘krtagnikaryo bhunjita’ (I. 31 in the Mit. ) is placed by Vis. after ‘ ekadesam = upadhyaya,’ while the Mit. places it three verses earlier. The Garudapurina here agrees with the Mit. In some cases Garuda strikes an independent path. For example, in व]. I. 171 Vis. reads ‘ mase’to jatakarmaca,’ the Mit. reads ‘ masyete jatakarma ca’ while Garuda ( chap. 93. 11) gives the easy reading ‘prasave jatakarma ca’. Mit. reads ( Yaj. I. 76 b) ‘ tyajan dapyas- trtiyarhsam--adravyo bharanarh striyah ’; Vis. omits the whole verse, while Garuda omits I. 76a (of Mit.) and reads the other half as ‘Suddhim tyajarhstrtiyarngam dadyadabharanath striyah ` ( 95. 23b). Verses I. 91-92 of the Mit. on the offspring of mixed marriages ‘are differently read by Vis. (I. 90-91), while the Garuda ( 96. 1b) has the same half verse as the Mit. I. 91a and the same half verse (96. 3a) as Vis. ( 917 ) and reads the two half verses between them as ‘jato’mbasthastu sudrayath nisidah parvatopi va ॥ mahisyah ksatriyajjato vaigyayarh mlecchasarhjfiitah ’. The foregoing makes it clear that the text that the Garudapurana had before it could not have been older than that commented upon by Vigvarapa and that it represents a stage intermediate between Vis. and the Mit. The above gives rise to an important question whether one can detect several strata in the Yajfiavalkyasmrti. From the fact that the sdtra of Sankha-Likhita cites Yajfiavalkya among the promul- gators of dharmasastras (vide note 137), while Yaj. himself includes Sankha-Likhita among the propounders of dharma (note 258), it may be plausibly said that Sankha-Likhita refer to an earlier Yajfiavalkyasmrti than the extant one. Beyond this there is no evidence to establish that there was an earlier version of the present अणु, A comparison of the readings of Visvaripa and the Mit, 176. History of Dharmagasira with those in the Agni and Garuda puranas has established that the text of the smrti no doubt underwent slight verbal changes between 800 and 1100 A. 9. and that a few verses were added and also omitted during these centuries. But the text remained in the main the same from 700 A. ४. What the original smrti contain- ed, whether it was in prose or verse or both and whether it dealt with only acara and prayaégcitta sections are questions on which conjectures thay be advanced, but there are no substantial materials for arriving at even tolerably certain conclusions. Yajiiavalkya’s work is more systematic than that of Manu. He divides the work into three sections and relegates all topics to their proper positions and avoids repetition. He treats of almost all subjects that we find in Manu, but his treatment is always concise and he makes very great and successful efforts at brevity. The result is that for the 2700 verses of Manu, he requires only a little over a thousand. He often compresses two verses of Manu into one, e.g. Manu II. 243, 247-248 are equal to ४}. I. 49, Manu III, 46-48 and 50 are concisely put in one verse by Y4j. (I. 79); vide also Manu IV. 7-8 and Y4j. I. 128 (contain almost same words also), Manu IV. 84-85 and Yaj. 1. 141. Ina few cases Manu and ४३). convey the same meaning in one verse without compression, ९ g. Manu III. 70 and Yaj. I. 102, Manu III. 119 and Yaj. I. r10, Manu VII. 171 and ४३). I. 348, Manu VII. 205 and Yaj. I. 349. The correspondence of Yajiavalkya’s words with the text of Manu is in most cases very close, so much so that one cannot help feeling that Yaj. had the Manusmayti before him and purposely made an attempt to abridge the somewhat loose expressions of Manu. The passages set forth above as examples of compression will also serve as illustrations of this fact. The word Kaya (from Ka) is used by both in the sense of ^ prajipatya form of marriage’ ( Manu III. -38 and Yaj. 1. 60); vide also Manu IJ. 109 and Yaj. I. 28, Manu III. 43-44 and Yaj. I. 62, Manu V. 26-27 and Yaj. I. 178-179, Manu VII. 56 and ४३). I. 312 for further close agreement in phraseology. Yaj. adds some subjects which have either no counterpart in our Manu or which are only noticed in passing by Manu. The Manu- smyti contains nothing corresponding to the Vinayakaganti and Grahaganti of Yaj. (I. 271-308 ). ४३]. gives a detailed treatment of five kinds of ordeals (II. 95-113), while Manu makes only a cursory reference to the ordeais of fire and water ( VIII. 114 ). Yaj. $4, The Yajfavatkyasmrti 177 contains considerable anatomical and medical matter (III. 75-108 ), which is wanting in Manu. On the other hand there are some subjects on which Y4j. is silent though they are dealt with in detail by Manu. This is the case with the account of the origin of the world. The whole of the Yajiiavalkya-smrti is written in the classical Anustubh metre. Though the author’s great aim has been to be concise, his verses are hardly ever obscure. The style is flowing and direct. There are not many un-Paninian expressions, though he employs ‘ pijya’ in I. 293 and ^ disya’ in II. 296. In the latter case both Visvaripa and Apararka avoid the fault by reading differently. The verse ‘kulani jatayah Srenyo’ is ungrammatical ( Tri. ed. II. 34 ), as ‘jati’, and ‘sreni> must be in the accusative case. According to the Mit. Yajfiavalkya addressed his words to Samaéravas and other sages ( vide com. on I. 1. 178 and 330-333). In this the Mit. is probably drawing upon the Br. Up. (III. 1. 2 ) where Yaj. asks Samasravas to take away the 1000 cows. The sages interpose (vide III. 118, 129) as in Manu, while the great teacher is passing in review one topic after another. The teacher himself addresses his auditors ( as in I. 178 ‘Srunudhvam’). It is said that the sages approached Yajiavalkya in Mithila and requested him to impart to them the dharmas of the varnas, 4sramas and others. The contents of the work may be briefly summarised as follows :—- Kanda I. fourteen vidyas 3; twenty expounders of dharma, sources of dharma ; constitution of a parisad, the samskaras from Garbhadhana to marriage, upanayana, its time and other details, every day duties of brahmacari, persons fit to be taught, what things and actions a brahmacari was to avoid, period of studenthood ; marriage, qualifications of girl to be married, limits of sapinda relationship, intercaste marriages; the eight forms of marriage and the spiritual benefits therefrom, guardians for marriage, Ksetraja son, grounds of supercession of wife, duties of wife ; principal and intermediate castes, duties of householder and keeping sacred domestic fire, the five great daily yajfias ; honouring a guest, madhuparka, grounds of precedence, rule of the road, privi- leges and duties of the four varnas, ten principles of conduct common to all, means of subsistence of a householder, and solemn vedic Sacrifices ; duties of snataka, days of cessation from study; rules H. ०, 23. i78 History of Dharmatistra about prohibited and allowed food and drink ; rules about flesh-eat- ing ; purifications of various materials, such as metal or wooden vessels ; gifts, who is fittest to accept them, who should accept gifts, rewards of gifts, gift of cow, rewards of other gifts, highest gift is knowledge ; sraddha, proper time for it, proper persons to be invited at it, unfit persons, the number of Brahmanas to be invited, proce- dure of Sraddha, various sraddhas such 25 parvana, vrddhi, ekoddista ; sapindikarana ; what flesh to be offered at 5244112, reward of offer- ing Sraddhas ; propitiatory ceremonies as regards Vinayaka and the nine grahas ; rajadharma, king’s qualifications, ministers, purobita, royal edicts, king’s duties of protection, administration of justice, taxation and expenditure, allotment of the day to various duties, constitution of mandala, the four expedients, the six gunas, fate and human effort, impartiality in punishment ; units of measure and weight, grades of fine ; Kanda II. members of hall of justice, judge, definition of vyavaharapada, rules of procedure, plaint, reply, taking security, indicia of a false party or witness, conflict of dharmagastra and arthasastra; means of proof, documents, witnesses, possession; title and possession, gradation of courts, force, fraud, minority and other grounds of invalidity, finding of goods; treasure trove; debts, rates of interest, debts of joint family, what debts of father son need not pay; devolution of debts; suretyship of three kinds, pledge; deposit ; witnesses, their qualifications and disqualifications ; admi- nistering oaths, punishment for perjury ; documents; ordeals of balance, water, fire, poison and holy water; partition, time of it, wife’s share on partition, partition after father’s death, property not liable to partition, joint ownership of father and son ; twelve kinds of sons ; illegitimate son of Sadra, succession to a sonless man, re-union, exclusion ; husband’s power over wife’s stridbana ; boundary disputes ; dispute between master and herdsman ; sale without owner- ship ; invalidity of gift, rescission of sale; breach of contract of service ; slavery by force; violation of conventions ; non-payment of wages; gambling and prize fighting; abuse, defamation and slander ; assault, hurt etc.,; sahasa; partnership; theft; adultery ; miscellaneous wrongs; review of judgment ; Kanda III. cremation and burial ; offering of water to various deceased persons ; for whom no mourning was to be observed and no water to be offered ; periods of mourning for various persons; rules for mourners; impurity on birth; instances of immediate purification on death or birth; means of purification, such as time, fire, ritual, 84. The Yajiavalkyaemrti «199 mud etc; rules of conduct and livelihood in distress ; rules for forest hermit ; rules fora yati ; how the individual soul is clothed in a body; various stages of the foetus, number of bones in the body, the various organs such as liver, spleen etc. ; the number of arteries and veins ; reflection over 4tman, use of music in the path of moksa ; how the originally pure 4tman is born among impure surroundings ; how some sinners are born as various kinds of animals or inanimate things ; how yogin attains immortality ; three kinds of actions due to sattua, rajas and tamas + means of atmajiana ; the two paths, one to immortality and the other to heaven ; the various diseases from which sinners suffer ; purpose of prayaScittas; names of 21 hells ; the five mortal sins, and other acts similar to them ; upapatakas ; prayascittas for Brahmana murder or for killing other persons; prayascittas for drinking wine, for other mortal and venial sins and for killing animals of various sorts ; greater or lesser expiation accord- ing to time, place, age, ability; ostracising the non-conformist sinner; secret expiations; ten yamas and niyamas; Santapana, mahasantapana, taptakrcchra, paraka, candrayana and other exe piations; rewards of reading this smrti. Besides the four vedas, Yaj. refers to the Vedatigas as six and enumerates fourteen vidyds ( four Vedas, six 2125, purina, nyaya, Mimarhsa, dharmasastra ). He refers to the Aranyaka and Yoga- astra composed by himself. Aranyakas in general are spoken of in I. 145 and Sukriya Aranyaka in III. 309. The Upanisads are mentioned in III. 189, where puranas are mentioned in the plural. Itihasas, Purana, Vakovakya, and NaraSarhsi gathids are mentioned in I. 45 (also I. ro1 for purana and itihadsa ). He enumerates at the commencement nineteen authors on dharma besides himself. But it is remarkable that in the body of the work not one individual author of a dharma-Sastra is mentioned by name. He speaks of Anviksiki ( Metaphysics >) and Dandaniti(I. 311). He lays down the dictum that where dharmagastra and arthasastra conflict, the former shall prevail (II. 21). He speaks of smrtis in general (1. 5 and I. 154). In III. 189 he speaks of sitras and bhasyas. What works are intended it is most difficult to say; the only extant bhasya which can be said with certainty to be older than the extant Yaj. smpti is that of Patafijali. He refers to other writers on dharma in the word ‘ eke’ (I. 36). The view referred to there occurs in Baud. Dh. S. 1. 2. 4. 180 History of नन्वत Yajiiavalkya agrees very closely with the Visnudharmasatra. What conclusions are to be drawn therefrom has been discussed above (see sec. 10). Similarly there is close correspondence between the Kautiliya and Yaj. If there is any borrowing at all, it must follow from the date above assigned to the Kautiliya that it is ४४, who borrows. There are numerous passages in Yaj. that show remarkable agreement with the text of Manu. But there are several points on which Yaj. differs from Manu and shows in general a more advanced state of thought and feeling than the Manusmrti. The following are the principal points wherein Yaj. differs from Manu. Manu seems toallow a Brahmana to marry a Sadra girl (III. 13), while Y4j. emphatically states it as his opinion that this is wrong (I. 59); Manu first describes the practice of niyoga and then severely condemns it (9. 59-68), while Yaj. does not condemn it (I. 68-69). Manu enumerates eighteen vyavaharapadas; रवर, does not expressly enumerate them in one place, though he defines vyavaharapada and adds verses of a miscellaneous character (prakirnaka) in his section on vyavahara. Manu is silent about the rights of inheritance of the widow of a sonless man and gives only a vaguely expressed order of succession, while Yaj. places the widow at the head of all heirs and enumerates several classes of heirs in a regular order. Manu condemns gambling outright (9. 224-226), while Yaj. brought it under state control and made it a source of revenue to the king (II. 200-203). There are several other matters which Y4j. treats at much greater length and more systematically than Manu, e. g. ordeals (as indicated above), means of proof in courts (Manu altogether ignoring documentary evidence, though he knew documents 8. 51-52 ), rules of procedure in courts (compare Manu 8. 53-56 with Yaj. II. 5-11 and 16-21), the doctrine of possession and prescription ( Yaj. II. 24-29 and Manu 9. 44 and 54). All these points tend to show that the Yajnavalkya आप is much later than the extant Manusnnrti. The Yajiiavalkya-smrti seems to-have tahen the section on Vinayakasanti from the Manavagrhya-sadtra (II. 14); verses 281- 283 of Yaj. (1) occur in the Manavagrhya II. 14, but in a different order.}'® The'Manavagrhya takes the Vinayakas to be four, while Yj. says that there isa single Vinayaka, whose appellations are Mita. &c. 316 spar विनायकान्‌ व्यारूयास्यामः | शालकङ्कटश्च कूष्माण्डराजपुत्रश्चोस्मितश्य (पुरश मिकभ्य ) देवयजनन्येनि । मानवगृह्ध 7. 14. 1-8; विनायकः कमेविप्रसिदुधर्थं विनियोजितः। 84. The Yajfavalkyasmrti 181 ’ बल details of information about Vinayaka in Y4j. (I. 272-276 ) appear to be versified from the prose37 of the M. Gr. ऽ. The details of worship also and the mantra ( Yaj. I. 291 ) are taken from the same work (vide M. Gr. S. II. 14. 30 for the mantra). Atone time the section on Vinayakasanti was thought to be a sure indication of the late date of Y4j. But since the discovery of the Manavagrhya that position had to be given up. In the Baudhayana-dharmasttra (II. $, 21) we have Vinayaka and his several appellations (in the tarpaya). Aparirka on Yaj. I. 275 quotes a Jong passage from the Baijavapa grhya which bears a very close correspondence in phraseology to the passage from the M. Gr. S. quoted above and which gives the names of the four Vinayakas as Mita, Sarhmita, Salakatankata and Kusmainda- rajaputra. The Yajiiavalkya-smyti stands in a very intimate relation to the white Yajurveda and the literature that clusters round it. Most of the mantras quoted (in part ) or referred to by Yaj. occur in the Rgveda as well as in the Vajasaneya-samhita ( €. g. in Yaj. I. 22, 24, 229, 230, 238, 239, 247). But there are a few mantras that do not occur in the Reveda, but only in the Vajasaneya-sarhhita or other samhitas ( €. g. ‘yavosi’ in Yaj. I. 230, which is Vaj. ऽ. $. 26, ‘ye samana in Yaj. I. 254 which is Vaj. S. 19. 45, ‘imam deva’ and ‘udbudhyasva’ in Yaj. I. 300 which are Vaj. S. 9. 40 and 15. 54, ‘annat parigrutah’ and ‘kandat’ in Yaj. I. 301 which are Vaj. S. 19. 75 and 13. 20). Verses ( व}. IIT. 191-197 ) are a paraphrase of certain passages of the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, so much so that the very words of the latter are used throughout in the former, as the aoe PRCT संमितन्येव तथा साटकरङ्कृटो | कूष्माण्डराजपुत्रश्च जपेत्‌ स्वाहमसमन्वितान्‌ । AAW SASSI नमस्कारसमन्वितेः ll याज्ञ. I. 267. 281-82 (Tri. ed.). The Mit. seems to have read; ‹०कटङ्कृटो | कुष्माण्डो UAHA. 317 एतेरधिगतानामिमानि emit भवन्ति । लोष्टं मद्राति । वृणानि छिनति । अङ्गेषु टेखान्‌ लिखति । अपः eat पश्यति । मुण्डान्‌ पश्यति । Ser पश्यति । काषायवाससः पश्यति । ST सूकरान्‌ गदेमान्‌ दिवाकीस्यादीनन्यांयाश्रयतान्‌ स्वभ्रान्‌ पश्यति ॥ अन्तर्हि क्रामति | अध्वानं ्रजन्मन्यते पृष्ठतो मे कश्िदनुधजाति | एतेः सलु विनायष्- राविष्ट राजपुत्रा लक्षणवन्तो राज्यं न लभन्ते । न्याः पतिकामा लक्षणवत्यो भतन कमन्ते । ... रूषिकराणां रुषिर्ल्पफला मवति । MATa . 71. 14 ‰ { ed. by Knauer ) 18% History of Dharmatisira quotations given below will show.3"® Then again Yaj. very closely agrees with the Paraskaragrhyasitra as was pointed out by Dr. Stenzler in his introduction to the edition of Yaj. (1849, Berlin ) and in the journal of the German Oriental Society (VII. 527). Visvaripa points out that Yaj. 1. 142-143 are based upon Paraskara. The mantra ‘ayarh me vajrah’ in Yaj. I. 135 (Trivandrum ed. ) is given in Paraskara-grhya II. 7.7. In the following also there is close verbal correspondence’?° between Yaj. and the P. Gr. ऽ ; Yaj. III. 1-2 and P.Gr. S. III. 10. 1, $, 8-9 and 12; Yaj. III. 3 and P. Gr. S. I. Io. 16 and 19-20; Yaj. IIT. 4 and P. Gr. S. III. 10. 46-473 Yaj. WY. 16 and P. Gr. ऽ. ITI. 10. 26-27. Similarly the verses of Yaj. on Sraddha (1. 217-270 ) offer many points of contact with the $riddha-kalpa of Katyayana edited by Dr. Caland (pp. 127-130 of his work ‘Ahnencult &c.’ From these facts Dr. Jolly concludes that Yajnavalkya’s work goes back to a dharmasatra of the White Yajurveda (R.u. S.p. 21). In another place Dr. Jolly hazards another conjecture based on the close correspondence between Yaj. and the Visnudharmasttra that he pro- bably belonged to the Kathaka sohool of the Black Yajurveda (Journal of Indian History, 1924, p. 7). ४३). also shows great similarity to the Kautiliya and borrows the Vinayaka-santi from 318 स ह्याश्रमर्विजिज्ञास्यः समस्तेरेवमेव तु । द्रष्व्यसत्वथ मन्तव्यः श्रोतव्यश्च द्विजातिमिः ॥ याज्ञ, 111. 191 ; compare ब्वहृद्‌रण्यक 1. 4. 5. and IV. 5. 6 (आत्मा वा अरे दरष्व्यः श्रोतव्य; &०. › ; य एनमेवं विन्दन्ति ये चारण्यकमाधिताः | उपासते द्विजाः सस्यं श्रद्धया परया युता; ॥ क्रमात्ते समवन्त्यचिरहः ye तथोत्तरम्‌ 1 अयन देद- लोकं च सवितारं सवेय॒तम्‌ ॥ ततस्तान्‌ पुरुषोभ्येत्य मानसो ब्रह्मो किकात्‌ | &e याज्ञ. 171. 192-194 ;compare बुहृदूरण्यकं 7.2. 15 ते य एवमेतद्विदुर्ये ant अरण्ये श्रद्धां सत्यमुपासते तेचिरमिसंभवन्ति ... तान्‌ वेदयुतान्पुरुषो मानस एत्य ब्रह्म लोकान्‌ गमयति, The next three verses of शह]. summarise यहृद्‌ारण्यक VI. 2. 15 using the last words of the latter¢ कीटाः पतङ्गा यदिदं दन्दुथूकम्‌, 319 पोषमासस्त्य रोहिण्यामष्ट्कायामथापि वा । जलान्ते छन्दसां कुयदुत्सर्गे विधिवद्‌ दविजः ॥ ae. 1. 142 ; compare पारस्कर II. 12. 1-2. ( Venkateévara press ed.) ८ पोषस्य राटिण्यां मध्यमायां वाष्कायामध्यायानुत्सृजेरन्‌ । उदकान्तं Tea & ०. ' $20 ०. &.सपमाद्‌ दशमाद्व।पि ज्ञातयोभ्युपयन्त्यपः। अप नः शोशुचदघमनेन पितदिद्धपखाः ॥ याज्ञ. Ul. 3; ' सरवे ज्ञातयोपोभ्यवयन्त्य।सपमासुरषादुकशषमाद्वा |... सव्यस्यानामि- SQUAT नः UDA = TAG निमज्नान्त। पारस्कर IIT, 10. 16 and 19-20, $4. Tne Yajfavalkyasmrti 188 the Manavagrhyasitra. From these facts one may argue at least with as much logicand force as underlies Dr. Jolly’s guess-work that Yaj. probably belonged to the Manava school of the Black Yajurveda or to the school of Kautilya. If Yaj. knew his business as a writer on Dharmaéastra, he must have consulted the works of his predecessors and his work is bound to show traces of that fact. One may conclude at the most that the author of the YaAjnavalkya- smrti may have possibly been a student of the White Yajurveda and so the mantras of the White Yajurveda and the Grhyasuatra of Paraskara were far more familiar to him than the other Vedas, sutras, smrtis, and other works. Nosuch conclusions that there was adharmasitra of the White Yajurveda and that the Yajnavalkyasmyti was based thereon are warranted by the facts so far discovered. For settling the date of Yaj. we need not consider the evidence after the 9th century. For in the first quarter of that century (as we shall see later on ) Viévaripa wrote his extensive commentary on Yaj. That he was separated from Yaj. by many centuries follows trom several considerations. Not only had numerous various readings arisen in the text of Yaj. when he wrote, but various interpretations of the same words and verses of Yaj. had arisen. For example, he gives several meanings of the words ‘putronanyaéritadravyah’ ( in ४३}. I]. 47 ), ‘simudrah’ (11. 41); he gives different interpretations of I. 265, II. 160, Il. 173 &c. He refers to the interpretations of his predecessors in several places by the’ word ‘anye’ (I. 3, 25, 155, 169; II. 21, 119, 121; III. 201, 209, 246 &c.). In several places he appears to be referring to two other interpretations than his own (vide on III. 250, the words ‘kecittu’ and ‘anye tu’ and the same words on If]. 261 and 264), That Visvarupa had before him actual commentaries on Yaj. and was not merely giving scholastic interpretations started by himself is made very clear in several cases by. his actually citing certain portions from those works. On I. 252 Visvartipa says ‘others take from somewhere the following Sloka ( then the loka is quoted ), but this sloka is of no help, as its origin is not known’.}* Similar words occur in the 821 अन्ये तु कुतश्िद्‌ागमय्येमं श्लोकं Telrd—“a: सपिण्डीकृतं प्रेतं पथक्पण्डेन योजयेत्‌ | विधिध्नस्तेन भवति पितृहा चोपजायते ॥ इति । अयं त्वस्पष्टमृषत्वाद्‌किंनित्करः। विश्वद्धप on या, I. 252, 184 ` भंग of Dharmasasira comment}? on Y4j. III. 222. On II. 193 he styles some predecessor as ‘panditarnmanya’ and on III. 257 he ridicules a predecessor who regards the verse of Manu IV. 222 as an arthavada by saying that that commentator wanted to show off that he knew the technical term arthavada.3?) It isnot unlikely that Visvarapa in this last passage refers to some ancient commentator of Manu such as Asahaya. In the Prayascittamaytkha,}*4 Nilakantha ( Benares edition of 1879 ) says that Sankara in his Bhasya on Brahmasatra (III. 4. 43 ) explained the application of Y4j. ITI. 226. Unfortunately in the printed editions of Sankara I could not find this. But from the Bhamati where Yaj. IIT. 226 is explained, it is clear that the passage must have occurred in the text of Sankara used by the Bhamati. Dr. Jolly lays great emphasis in assigning a late date to Yaj. on the fact that Kumarila, who cites Manu, Gautama, Apastamba, Baudhayana frequently, ignores the Yajiiavalkya-smrti altogether. But this silence of the great mimarhsaka can only mean that he did not assign the same pre-eminent and venerable position to ४३. that he assigned to Manu, Gautama and others. Dr. Jolly himself is prepared to place Yaj. three or four centuries earlier than Kumiarila. It will be shown hereafter that Narada and Brhaspati cannot be placed later than 500 A. D. and may have flourished two or three centuries earlier still. Ona comparison of their doctrines with those of Y4j. it will have to be conceded that they represent a far greater advance in juristic principles and exactitude than Yaj. So the latter cannot be placed later than the 3rd century A.D. As Yaj. is shown above to have followed the Manusmrti and the Kautiliya his smrti cannot be placed earlier than the first century B. C. We shall not be therefore far from the truth if we place his smrti somewhere between the first century B. C. and the third century of the Christian era. In the Lankavatarasitra (ed. by B.Nanjio, 1923, eee one ee ~~ [क 1 i 322 अन्ये तु कुतश्रिद्‌।गमय्येमं श्लोकं पठन्ति--रागाद्‌ द्वेषात्‌ प्रमादाद्वा स्वतः परत एव षा । यो इन्याद्‌ ब्राह्मणं कश्वित्‌ स॒ स्वां mee भवेत्‌ ॥ इति । तस्वदवि्षातमूलत्वादू विश्वाम्‌ । विश्वडूप ०० था. IIT. 222, 323 अन्ये तु मुक्वातेन्यतमस्यान्नमित्येवम।दीन्यथेवाद्त्वेन भ्थाचक्षते । ,.. न चात्र छिंचिदथवादसारुप्यमस्य स्यात्‌ । अतोधेवादो नाम वाक्षयप्रकारोस्ति तमध्यहं जाना. मीत्येतावनिवाभिप्रायः । इत्युपेक्षणीयम्‌ | विश्व ० OM याज्ञ, IIT. 257. | 98८ श्रीश ङ्कराचाय॑स्तु कामतोव्यवडर्यस्तु TIES याक्नवल्क्यवचो बहिस्तभयथा स्मतेराणाराश्यति TT रुतमायग्यिलनेष्ठिकनह्यचयादिपरम्‌ wae, ४.7, $4. The Yajnavalkydsmrti 18§ Kyoto) gathas 814-816 are ‘Katyayanah sitrakarta yajfiavalkastathaiva ca... Walmiko Masuraksagca Kautilya Asvalayanah t...’. From the context it appears that the author of the smrti is referred to as Yajnavalka. Dr. Jolly (९, ४. S. p. 21 ) following Dr. Jacobi (ZD MG ३०, p. 306) thinks that Yaj. shows an acquaintance with Greek astro- logy. Dr. Jacobi’s position amounts to this that the naming of the week days after the planets was established among the Greeks towards the end of the 2nd century A. D. and as the names of the week days and the arrangement ofthe planets in correspondence with them was borrowed by the Indians from the Greeks, no Indian work which enumerates the week days or arranges the planets in the well-known sequence ( of Sun, Moon, Mars &c. ) could have been composed before the third century after the Christ. As is very often the case with Western Sanskrit scholars in matters of Indian chronology, this grand generalisation is based upon very slender data. The premises are mere assumptions without hardly any evidence worth the name to support them. No one knows exactly when the week-days were named and who were the people that first employed the current names of the week-days, It is well- known that as far back as the days of Herodotus the Egyptians had a presiding deity for each day and that in the times of Julius Cesar there were days of Saturn (ण्व 1. A. vol. 14, p. 1, General Cunningham’s article for the Indian origin of week-days ). At least from the third century B. C., as vouched for by the 13th edict of Asoka, India was in close touch with Syria and Egypt, where Buddhist missionaries had been sent by ASoka while Antiochus and Ptolemy ruled in the two, countries respectively. Therefore, if Indians at all borrowed the week-days and the arrangement of planets from foreigners,.there is nothing to prevent us from holding that they borrowed them from the Egyptians. The earliest dated Indian record wherein a week-day is mentioned is the Eran Inscription of 484 A. D. (Gupta Inscriptions p. 89) where we have ° Suraguror divase. ” It is tobe noticed that Yaj. does not mention the week-days. In I. 296 he mentions the nine grabas in order as the Sun, the Moon, Mars (the son of the earth ), Mercury (the son of Soma ), Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Rahu, Ketu. No one can gainsay that at least the Sun, the Moon, Brhaspati and Venus were known to the Rgvedic India. Brhaspati in the highest heaven is प, 2, 24. 186 History of Dharmasdstrda spoken of in the Rgveda}*5 and the conjunction of Jupiter and Tisya (constellation of Pusya) is spoken of in the Tai. Brahmana.}#6 We know so very little of the ancient astronomical science in ancient India that one must think twice before dogmatis- ing. Yaj. nowhere mentions the zodiacal signs ( 7615 ) and pro- bably did not know them. Not only so, in his day the naksatras were still arranged from Krttika to Bharani as was the case in the Tai. ऽ. IV. 4. 10. Vide Yaj. I. 268 ( Krttikadi bharanyantam ) We know from Varahamihira that in the 5th century A. D. the signs of the zodiac and the arrangement of Naksatras from Aévini to Revati were established facts in all parts of India. Therefore Yaj. who uses the ancient arrangement of Naksatras cannot be placed so late as the 4th century A.D. When Yaj. (I. 80) speaks of ^ susthe indau ” we should not, following such commentaries as the Mit., connect the words with the signs of the zodiac or the houses of the horoscope. Visvaripa does not speak of rasis in this connection, but of Naksatras only. From very ancient times certain’ Naksatras had come to be regarded as auspicious or suitable for par-~ ticular acts. The Tai. 32’Br. directs that one should not finish a thing or begin to sacrificeona naksatra with an evil name. The same Brahmana says that ploughing was to be begun on the Maitra asterism (Anuradha) and consecration of ‘fire on the Aditya naksatra. Even the Rgveda speaks of auspicious days3?9 and the Tai. Br. speaks of Deva-naksatras and Punydhas, and says that a daughter should be given away in marriage on the Svati naksatra if she was desired to be her husband’s favourite.33° Vide Baudhayana Grhya (I. 1) for the marriage naksgatras; also Ap. Gr. ऽ. II. 15. 12-14, Gobhila Grhya 4. 4. 28 and 2.1.1. Therefore, when एव]. speaks of planets being badly placed (I. 307), or of Vyatipata, Gajacchaya and the passing 885 बहस्पतिः प्रथमे जाय॑मानो महो ज्योतिषः परमे व्योमन्‌ । ऋग्वेषु 4. 50. 4. 826 घहृ्पतिः प्रथमं जायमानस्तिष्यं नक्षजममिसंबमव । ते, बा. 3.1.1.5 997 तस्माद्न्लीलनाम श्ित्रे TWIT यजेत यथा पापाहे कुरुते तादृगेव तत्‌ | ते. आ, 1.5.2.6 828 Heyer wued ,.. आदित्येन आदधते । ते, बा. 1.8. 4.2. 829 स्तोतारं विः सुदिनत्व अहम्‌ | mag ४71. 88. 4. 830 aay देवनक्षत्राणि तेषु कुवीत यत्कारी स्यात्‌ पुण्याह एव कुरुते । ते. भा. 1. 8.8.9; at कामयेत दुहितरं प्रिया स्यादिति तां निषटधाधां दुभ्यात्‌ । ते, भा, 1. 6. 8. 3, $4, The Yajfravalkyasmrli 187 (sarhkrama) of the Sun (1, 218), we have no right to connect this with the rasis. In III. 171 and 172 he speaks of only the conjunce- tion of planets and of the passage (of them) through 1/4; and naksatras. The Baud. Dh. S. II. $. 23 speaks of the nine grabas in the same order as that of Yaj. Therefore there is hardly any evidence to show that Yaj. knew more astrology than was current in the days of the Brahmanas and the Grhyasitras. Yaj. (in IL, 240-241) speaks of the fine to be imposed on those who counter- feited ^ nanakas” (coins) and on those examiners of ‘“‘nanakas” who falsely declared a good coin to be counterfeited and vice versa. Mr. Jayasval ( Calcutta Weekly Notes, vol. 17, p. CLIX ) says that nanaka is the gold coin of the Kushans bearing the picture of the Goddess Nanaia and that the Kushans did not rise to importance before 78 A.D. This would place Yaj. after 100 A. D. But it must be remembered that this connection between the Goddess Nanaia and the word “‘ nanaka ” is quite conjectural and that the chronology of the Kushans is far from being settled. १}. speaks of the sight of yellow-robed people as an evil omen (1. 273 ), which is probably a reference to the Buddhists; though it has to be remembered that he prescribes old yellow (kasaya ) robes for his seeker after moksa (III. 157). He speaks of the founding of monasteries of Brahmanas learned in the Vedas (II. 185). The philosophical doctrines contained in the third section ( verses 64-205 ) approach that phase of the Vedanta that was taught by Sankara. Vide particularly III. 67, 69, 109, 119, 125, 140. He employs in elucidating the philosophy of 4tman the well-known examples of ghatakasa and of the reflection of the Sun in water (III. 144 ), of the various ornaments made from gold, of the spider spinning webs out of his own body ( both in III. 147), of the actor representing various parts ( II]. 162). All these illustrations frequently occur in Sankara’s Sarirakabhasya (6. g. ghatakasa on II. 1. 14, spider on II. 1. 25). All these points, however, are of very little use in arriving ata definite age for the smrti of Yaj. The foregoing discussion has established that Dr. Jolly’s date (viz. 4th century A. D. in R. u. S., p. 21) is much later than the data warrant. There is nothing to prevent us from holding that the extant smrti was composed during the first two centuries of the Christian era or éven a little earlier, 188 History of Dharmatisira Besides the Yajiiavalkyasmrti we have to reckon with three other works connected with the name of Yajiiavalkya, viz. Vrddha Yaj., Yoga-Yaj., and Brhad-Yaj. All these three works are comparatively ancient. Visvaripa quotes (vide note 219 above ) two verses of Vrddha-Yajfiavalkya saying that many writers on dharma have been born and will be born and enumerating ten such writers. The Mit. and Apararka quote Vrddha-Yajfiavalkya frequently. One quotation cited from Vrddha-Yaj. by Madhava refers to the means of proof in case of doubt whether there was a partition.33' So Vrddha-Yaj. wrote also on Vyavahara. Most of the quotations occur in the priyascitta section. It is interesting to note that one of these quotations in Apararka}3* regards the touch of Parasikas as on the same level with that of Candalas, Mlecchas and Bhillas. The Dayabhaga35; says that Jitendriya cited the words of Brhad-Yajfiavalkya (viz. ‘‘sodaro nanyamatrjah”). The Mit. cites Brhad-Yajiavalkya on prayascitta. So this also isa work that must be held to be earlier than 1000 A. D. Yj. himself is styled Yogisvara by the Mit. and other works, but Yoga-Yajiavalkya is a different work from the Yj. smrti and existed probably prior to the Jatter work. ४३). (in IJ. 110 ) claims the YogaSastra to be his own work. So either Yaj. the author of the smrti composed such a work or the author of the smyti in order to glorify it claimed that he was the same as the author of a well-known YogaSastra ascribed to a Yajnavalkya. At all events Yoga-Yajiiavalkya existed certainly much earlier than 800 A. D. Vécaspatimisgra in his commentary on the Yogasatrabhisya quotes a half verse from Yogi-Yajiiavalk ya.334 Vacaspati wrote his NyAyasacinibandha in 898 (of the Vikram era ) 1, € 841-42 A.D. Apararka quotes profusely from Yoga Yajavalkya. One of the quotations ( on III. 198-201 ) is an Arya a ॐ 1 ५ १8 | a == = त) econ = अ 331 विभागधमसन्द्ह अम्धुसश्ष्यमिलेितेः । विभ।गभावना कायां न वेद्‌ देविकी क्रिया ॥ पराद्ारमाधवीय ITI, part 2 p. 571 compare याज्ञ TI, 149 $32 खण्ड।लपुक्कुसम्टेच्छमिष्ठपारसिकादिकम्‌ । महापातकिनश्भेव यषा स्नायात्सचेलकम्‌ ॥ oD याह, III. 29-30, $83 संसृष्टपदमेव वा ACA | अत एव यहयाल्नदल्क्यवचनं सोदरो नाम्यमात॒ज हति जितेनद्धिषेण लिखितम्‌ । दायभाग ४, 298 ( ed. of 1829). 934 ag हिरण्यगभे। योगस्य TH नान्यः पुरातनः — इति योगियाल्ञवल्क्यस्परतेः कर्थं पतअलेर्योगशल्लकतेत्वमित्याशङ्क्य &०, The words हिरण्यगर्भो &०. occur in the me. of मृयोगियाह्ञवरक्य XII. 5 $4. The Yajfavalkyasmrti 18¢ (on the duration of a matra335). The quotations refer to pranayama, Gayatri, bathing, tarpana and jana. His position is that even a householder becomes mukta by performing his duties, by contem- plating on aman and by knowledge of the Vedanta, that the highest goal is reached by a combination of jiiana and karma and that the view that moksa results from knowledge alone is a sign of indolence.33¢ The Parasaramadhaviya quotes a verse from Yogi-Yaj. saying that only the Brahmanas can pass through the four asramas, the Ksatriya through three (excluding the last ), the Vaisya through two and the Sadra only through one ( viz. that of householder 3.37 Kullaka on Manu (3. 1) quotes the view of Yogi-Y4j. that Brahmacarya extended to twelve years or five for cach of the four Vedas.33® In the Deccan College Collection there are two mss. of Yogi- Yajnavalkya (Nos. 91 and 388 of 1899-1915 ) in twelve chapters and about 495 verses. The colophon at the end of the first chapter in the latter ms. describes it in the style of the Bhagavadgita.339 Yajiiavalkya 15 said to have learnt Yogasastra from Brahma and expounds it to his wife Gargi. The whole work deals with the eight angas of yoga, their divisions and subdivisions. Out of the several quotations cited above from Yoga-Yaj. only one .was found in this work. It contains a verse (I. 68 astau grasé munch proktah &c ) which is practically the same as Baud. Dh. S. II. 7 Oy, CS Beat oe he 0 ति [9 अ 1 7 1 109 7 त ke rn os ee 1 7 1 ee ee 385 अङ्गलिमोक्षनरितयं जान्वोः परिमा्जने वापि । तालन्नयमपि तज्जा मात्रासंज्ञं शंसन्ति ॥ AS on याज्ञ TIT. 198-201. This is उुवनीति, a variety of आया It occurs in the ms. of युहयोगियान्ञ VIIT, 12, where we read aya: परि. माजनमथपि | तत्काटत्रयमपि Xo. 39 स्वकमेणामनुषठानात्सम्बगात्मनिदृशन।त्‌ । Vaart परिज्नानाद्‌ गृहस्थोपि विमुख्यते ॥ quoted by अपराकं on aq, LIL. 57. This occurs in बहयोगियाश्च ® (ms.) XI. 47; परिन्नानाद्वदेन्मुक्तिरेतद्‌।लस्यलक्षणम्‌। क यञ्केशभयाख्चेव GA नेरन्ति पण्डिताः। हञानकर्मसमायोगात्परमाभ्नोति प्रषः । TMT न सिष्येत उमे तस्मात्‌ समाश्रयेत्‌ ॥ quoted by अप्राकै on यह्व. IIT. 205 ; these two are युह्योगि. IX. 34 ands. 387 चत्वारो बाह्मणस्योक्त। आश्रमाः श्रुतिचोदिताः । क्षन्ियस्य जयः प्रोक्त द्वावेको वेश्य- WAT: ॥ quoted in प्रा, मा. vol.I., part 3, 2. 153. This is योगृयाज्ञवस्कय 1. 30. 938 gare योगियाज्ञवरक्यः | पतिवेद्‌ MEAT TAME पज वा ^, ॐ हति श्रीयाह्नवल्क्यगीनासूपनिषत्सु बह्मवियाय। ane याज्गवल्कयगार्गीसिंवादे प्रथमोध्यायः, 190 History of Dharmatisira’ 22 and another verse (X. 19) which is a quotation from the Bhagavatgita.34° There is another ms. ( No. 354 of 1875-76 ) in the same collection called Brhad-Yogi-Yajiavalkya-smrtiin twelve chapters and about 930 verses. Yajfiavalkya in Mithila is asked by Janaka and the sages and then expounds the following subjects :— how mantras are to be studied in connection with metre, deity, sage and viniyoga, about okara or pranava; seven Vyahrtis; Gayatri ; nyasa of Gayatri; sandhyopisana; snina; Japa; pranayama; dhyana ; siryopasthina ; culogy of yoga ; eulogy of Vedaéastra. From the above it is clear that Yoga-Yajiavalkya and Brhad- yogi-Yajnavalkya are entirely different works and that the latter is comparatively an early work, as quotations from it are cited by Vacaspatimisra (gth century) and Apararka. The latter work con- tains numerous quotations from the Bhagavadgita and the Manu- smrti and a few from the Yajiavalkyasmrti (the verse about the 14 vidyasthanas is the same in both ). So it .must have been composed between 200 and 700 A. D. There are many commentaries on the Yaj. आप. Out of these those of Visvaripa, Vijiianesvara, Apararka and Salapani are the most famous. For these see sections 60, 70, 79 and 95 below. On ac- count of the paramount importance of the Mit. in modern Hindu Law as administered by British Courts in the whole of India, the smrti of Yaj. has indirectly become the guiding work for the whole of India and this position it richly deserves by its concise but clear state- ment of principles, its breadth of vision and its comparative impar- tiality towards the claims of both sexes and the different varnas. 35. The Parasara Smrti This work has been published several times, but the edition of Jivananda ( part Il. pp. 1-52.) and that in the Bombay Sanskrit Series with the voluminous gloss of the great Madhava are the best known. In the following pages Jivananda’s edition has been used. The smrti of Parasara must have been an ancient one as Y4j. (1. 4.) mentions him among the ancient writers on dharma. But it is doubtful whether we possess the ancient smrti of Paragara. The extant smyti is probably a recast of it as it mentions Yaj. in the first A LL LE SNS 40 य य वापि स्मरल्मावै & ५. योगयाज्ञवस्क्य उ. 19. $5. The Partéarasmrti 191 chap. (p. 2 ). The Garudapurina jn chap. 107 gives a summary in 39 verses of the ParaSara-smrti. In doing so it takes parts of the latter and pieces them together. For example, verses 2-4 in the Garudapurana ( chap. 107 ) are ‘ Srutih smrtih sadacdro yah kascid vedakartrkah | vedah smrtih brahmanadau dharma Manvadibhih sada danam kaliyuge dharmah kartaram ca kalau tyajet । papa- krtyarh tu tatraiva sapam phalati varsatah ॥ Acardt pripnuyat sarvath sat karmani dine dine । sandhya snanam japo homo devatithyadi- pajanam 0)’. These are taken verbatin: or with slight changes from the Parasara-smrti ; compare na kascid vedakarta ca vedasmarta catur- mukhah t ईप smrtih sadacara nirnetavyas ca sarvada । tathaiva dharmarh smarati Manuh kalpaintarantare \ tapah param... danam- ekain kalau yuge ॥ , . . tyajet-deSam krtayuge... kartarath ca kalau yuge |... krte ta tatksanat Sapah ... kalau sarhvatsarena tu ॥ chap. I. verses 20-21, 23, 25, 27 and vide 39 for verse 4 of the Garuda-purana. This establishes that the Garuda regarded the Para- Sara-smrti authoritative and ancient. There is another problem to be considered. Kautilya mentiors six times the views of Parasara or the Parasaras on various aspects of politics and state admi- nistration. Therefore it appears that there was a work of Parasara on politics, in which it is possible that vyavahara also was dealt with. The extant Parasarasmrti is divided into twelve chapters and contains according to the last verse but one 592 verses. It deals only with cara and prayascitta. Madhava introduced his dis- quisition on vyavahara, which forms about a fourth of his extensive gloss, in an indirect way by regarding vyavahara as a part of the duties of Ksatriyas on which the Parasarasmrti has something to say.34! The name Paragara is an ancient one. In the Tai. Aranyaka CI. 1.3.37) we have a Vyasa ParaSarya. In the Varhsa that occurs in the Brhadaranyaka we have a Parasarya. The Nirukta 341 क्षियो हि प्रजा tery शखपाणिः मचण्डवत्‌। विजित्य परसैन्यानि क्षितिं धर्मेण ¶ाल- येत्‌ ॥ Trae chap. I. p. 6. (B.8. Series); “अत एवाकारकाण्डे भ्यवहाराणामन्तर्मा- वममिपेत्य पराशरः पृथग्भ्यवहारकाण्डमकृत्वा क्षितिं धर्मण पालयेदिति gears ee. Cnt कृतवान्‌ । परा. मा, 9.8. 19% History of Dharmastaira gives an etymology of Paragara.3#?, Panini attributes a bhiksusutra to Pardgarya.343 The introductory verses of the smrti say that sages went to Vyasa and requested ;him to instruct them in the dharmas and conduct beneficial to mankind in the Kali age and that the great Nyasa took them to his father Parasara, son of Sakti, in the Badarikasrama, who then propounded the dharmas of the four ४५१८5. The first chaptar recites the smrtis then known (19 in all ) and lays down that in the four ages of Kyta, Treta, Dvapara, and Kali, the dharmas proclaimed by Manu, Gautama, Sankha-Likhita and Paragara were respectively to be the guiding ones. The following are briefly the contents of the Paragara smrti :-— I. Introductory verses ; Pardsara imparts to the sages knowledge of dharma ; the dharmas of the four yugas; differentiation of the four yugas from various points of view; six daily duties, viz. sandhya, bath, japa, homa, Vedic study, worship of gods, Vaisvadeva and honouring guests, eulogy of honouring guests, the proper means of livelihood for Ksatriya, Vaigya and Sudra; II. duties of house- holder ; agriculture ; the five unconscious acts of injury to animal life ; III. purification from impurity due to birth and death; IV. concerning suicide; punishment for wife deserting her husband though poor, foolish or diseased ; definition and rules about Kunda, Golaka, Parivitti, and Parivitta; remarriage of women; rewards for chaste widows; V. expiation for minor things (such as dog-bite ) ; about a Brahmana who has consecrated fires dying on a journey or committing suicide; VI. Expiation for killing various beasts and birds, for killing Sadras, artisans, women, Vaigyas, Ksatriyas, sinful Brahmanas ; eulogy of Brahmanas; VII. purifications of various articles (such as vessels of wood, metal &c ); about a woman in her menses ; VIII. Expiations for killing cows and oxen unwittingly in various ways; approaching a parisad for expiation, constitution of a parisad ; praise of learned Brahmanas; IX. proper thickness of sticks for beating cows and bulls; expiations for; using thicker sticks and injuries to them ; X. other expiations such as candrayana for inter- course with women with whom intercourse is forbidden; the expiation called Santapana ; XI. expiation for partaking food from $463 पाराशयेशिलाकिभ्यां भिश्षुनटसु्रयोः । पा, 1४. 3. 110. 85. The Parasarasmrtt 198 Candalas &c.; rules as to whose food may be taken and whose not; purification of wells &c. when animals fall in them; XII. bath prescribed after evil dreams, vomitting, shaving &c.; expiations for drinking wine and nasty things through ignorance; five kinds of bath ; when bath at night allowed ; what things should always be kept in the house or seen; definition of the unit of ground called gocarma; expiations for the deadly sins of Brahmahatya, drinking liquor, theft of gold &c. Parasara contains several peculiar vicws. Ee speaks of only four sons (aurasa, ksetraja, datta and krtrima) though he does not expressly negative a larger number (chap. 4 p. 14 ). He eulogises the practice of Sati ( last two verses of chap. 4). The well-known verse of Narada (Stripuriisa-yoga 97) “‘naste 11116 &c.” is read at the end 25 ‘‘ patir-anyo na vidyate” (p. 15). There are a few verses in the Indravajra metre ( ९. g. on pp. 11-12 and 36). The Para- Sarasmrti quotes the views of several writers on dharma. Manu is frequently cited in the words ‘‘ Manur-abravid.” In the 7th chapter alone those words occur four times.344 None of them corresponds exactly with any verse of the Manusmyti. Yet Manu V. 133 may be compared with the first two. Besides these, in the gth chapter Manu’s view is quoted that on killing an animal the guilty party should restore a similar one to the owner or its price.345 In the roth he says that according to Manu uncooked food, milk or oil brought from a $tidra’s house and used in cooking in a Brahmin’s house could be eaten by a Brahmana. This is similar to Manu IV. 223.348 Inthe rath chapter Parasara cites the view of Manu that a Brahmana fed on food (cooked) from sudras would become a vulture for twelve births, a pig for ten anda dog for seven. OR went eee $44 माजोरमक्षिकाकीटमद्क्रकृमिद राः । Reed wurde ARATE ॥. There are two more ending with नूच .,. ndiq. प्भासादीनि तीर्थनि APIA: सरितस्तथा | विप्रस्य दक्षिणे कणं सानिध्यं मनुरयवीत्‌ ॥ पराशर chap. 7; ००८४० यो. ध, a. I. 4. 2. for the last. Ms प्रमापणे म्राणमतां दयात्तसखरतिरूपकम्‌ । तस्यानुरूपं मूल्यं वा Zarigeniery: ॥ परश्चर 9th chap. $6 शुष्का गोरसं BE शद्रवेश्मन आगतम्‌ Te ne पूतं भोज्यं तन्ममुरबषीत्‌ ॥ पराशर 10th chap. ; नायाच्छुद्रस्य TEM genset द्विजः । भादृदीनाममे- वास्भादुवृत्तावेकरात्रिकम्‌ ॥ मन्‌. 1४ -28. 8, ०, 2९. न wat 0 111 ee ~= 194 History of Dharmatastra There is nothing corrosponding to thisin Manu. Inthe 9th Manu is spoken of as onc who knows all Sastras.347. The first verse of the 6th chapter says that Manu deals at length with expiation for killing animals.348 This is probably a reference to Manu XI. ty¥1-141. Numcrous verses in the Paragara-smyti are word for word the same 25 those of the Manusmrti. For example, Manu I. 85-86 occur in the first chapter of Paraisara, Manu V. 160( about a widow remaining chaste ) occurs with slight variations in the 4th; Manu XII. 114-115 (about parisad ) occur in the gth chap. ( p. 29); Manu XI. 212 (about the definition of Santapana) is the same as Parasara ( 10] chap. p. 40). Several verses are common to Baudhayana and Pardsara, €. £. Baud. Dh. ऽ. 1. 1. 8,11, 14 occur in the eighth chapter of Parisara(pp. 29,30). The verse ‘na nari- kelair na ca sanabalair” occurring in ParaSara ( 9th chap. p. 35) is quoted as Vasistha’s by Haradatta on Gautama (22. 18). 044६414 is mentioned by name several times (chap. III. 2, p. 8, chap. VJ. 1. p. 18 and p. 23, chap. VII. 1. p. 24, chap. X. 12. p. 38). Uéganas is cited on p. 49 (chap. 12 ), Prajapati (in IV. 3. p. 13), Safkha (chap. 4 p.15 ). Weda, Vedangas, dharmasastras and smrtis are spoken of on p. 23 (6th chap.). In the 11th chap. Pardgara refers to several Vedic mantras, most of which occur in the Rgveda, but two of them, “‘tejosi Sukram” and ‘‘devasya tva” are not found in the Rgveda, but in the Vaj. S. ( 22. 1 and 1. 24 respectively ) 22125114 appears 10 have been a practical man. He cxhorts his readers to save their bodies first in invasions, journeys, diseases, calamities and then care for dharma. He recommends the non- observance of rules of purity in times of difficulty and adherence to the strict rules of dharma when one is at ease.349 The Mit., Apararka, Smrticandrika, Hemadri and other later works quote ParaSara very frequently. Most of these are found in the extant Parasarasmrti. For example, vide pp. 1169, 1177, 1180, 1191 &c. of Apararka, all of which are traced in Pardgara pp. 42, 43, 42 and 16 respectively. Visvaripa quotes Parasara several times 347 मनुना AAR MAMAN जानता । परार 9th. 248 अतः परं प्रवक्ष्यामि प्राणिहृत्य।सु निष्कृतिम्‌ | पराशरेण पूर्वोक्तां मन्वरथंपिं च विस्त॒ताम्‌ ॥ $49 Sarah प्रवासे वा व्याधिषु ्यसनेप्वापि | Was Tae HUET समाचरत्‌ ॥ ; आपत्कले तु संप्रातते शौचाचार न चिन्तयेत्‌ । स्वयं समृद्रेत्‌ पश्यात्‌ EM धर्म समा- रेत्‌ ॥ 7th chap., last three verses. 86, The Paraiégaraaemrit 198 and these quotations can be verified ; €, £. on Yaj. III. 16 the verse ५ anatham ” ascribed to Parisara is found in Paragara chap. III p.10; on Yaj. III. 257 ten verses are cited by Visvarapa from Parasara which occur in Parasara with considerable variations (chap. VII. pp. 20-21); on Yaj, III. 262 the verse ‘“‘gavam bandhana” is cited from Parasara, which is the first verse of the 8th chapter. There-'. fore it is quite clear that in the first half of the 9th century the Paragarasmrti that we have now was considered to be authoritative and the work of an ancient sage. It seems to have known a work of Manu, as seen above. Therefore it must be assignad to some period between the first and the 5th century of our era. In the same direction points the fact that the Garudapurina ( chap. 107 ) seems to have known the introductory verses of Parigara and as shown above ( p. 191 ) combines passages of Parasara in a summary of its teachings.3s° The Visnu-dharmottara which 15 frequently quoted by Apararka and other later works cites verses that are borrowed from Paragara. For example, chap. 75. 1 of the former is the same as a verse of ParaSara.35? There is an extensive work called Brhat-Pardsara-samhita (published by Jivananda, part II. pp. 53-309). It is divided into 12 chapters and the last verse says that it contains 3300 verses and that Suvrata proclaimed the Sastra imparted by 2405414. The introduc- tory verses contain the same story as that in the Parasara-smrti and many of the verses in the first chapter of the two works ( such as those about the 19 writers on dharma &c. ) are almost the same in both. The total of verses in the printed work comes to about 3000 and not 3300. It appears that the work is a recast of the Paragarasmpti made by Suvrata. The subjects of the twelve chapters are :—I. Introductory, the proper sphere of Aryas; summary of contents ; II. Disquisition on the 6 daily karmas, sandhya, bath, japa, worship of gods, Vaisvadeva and honouring guests ; Gayatri ; the dharmas of the Varyas; II]. duties and manners of 2 house- holder ; agriculture, honour to cows ; IV. forms of marriage ; duties of wives; Jatakarma and other rites; gifts; proper persons to 950 पराशरोबवीद्‌ ene ध्म वर्णा भतीदिकम्‌ । HET कस्ये क्षयोत्पस्या ef यन्ते तु प्रजा- द्यः ॥ गरुडपुराण 107. 1. ( Venketesvar Press ed. ) $51 अनाथं erent प्रेतं ये वहन्ति द्विजातयः । पदे पदे यज्नफलमानुपबोहभन्ति ते ॥ पराशर chap. 3. p. 12. 196 Tlistary of Dharmasastra receive gifts; V. concerning éraddhas; VI. impurity on birth and death ; prayascittas for various acts; VII. candrayana and othr penances ; VIII. gifts; IX. rites for propitiating Ganesa and the planets, Rudra &c ; X Rajadharma ; dharmas of forest hermit and 10: ; XI. the different varietics of Brahmacirin, householder, forest rmit and yati; XII. pranayama and other angas of yoga. This Brhar-Parasara contains a considerable number of verses mostly in the Indravajra metre and a few in tha Vasantatilaka ( €. £. p. 134). The Brhat-Paragara appears to be a late work. Itis a recast of the Paragara-smrti. It contains the Vinayakaganti as elaborated by Yajiiavalkya, since it speaks of only one Vinayaka (gth chap. p. 247) and not of four asin M. Gr. S. On p. 249 it quotes Yaj. I. 285 ( about the names of Vinayaka ) with the readings found in the Mit. It speaks of the rasis( p. 244 ). It is not quoted by Visvardpa, the Mit. or Apararka. ,It is mentioned in Bhattoji’s comment on the Caturvirhsatimata ( p. 138) and by Nandapandita in the Dattaka- mimarhsa, which quotes a verse ( Brhat-Paragara p. 153 ).35 A Vrddha-Paragara is quoted by Apararka (on Yaj. II. 318 ) immediately after 0125214 and as holding a different view. Madhava also quotes a Vrddha-Paragara ( ParaSara-Madhaviya vol. 1, part 1, p. 230). This seems to be a different work from the Paragara-smrti and the Brhat-Paragara. Hemadri ( Carturvarga. vol. III, part 2, p. 48 )and Bhattoji in his gloss on CaturvirhSa- timata (p. 138) quote a Jyotih-Pardégara. 36. The Narada-smrti There are two versions of Narada on Vyavahara, a smaller and a larger one. The smaller version was translated by Dr. Jolly in 1876 ( (लः & (तड London ). The text of the longer version was published by the same scholar in the Bibliotheca Indica series (1885) and was translated by him in the Sacred Books of the East Series ( vol. 33 ). The edition of the text is accompanied up to verse 21 of the sth title ‘ abhyupetyaSusrisi ’ by extracts from the commentary of Asahaya as revised bf Kalyanabhatta, who was encouraged in the task of revision by KeSavabhatta ५ me => - [1 कक क Gy SEES a enon Sie meee Ve yee 95४ अगुत्रस्य पित॒म्यस्य TAS MAT मवेत्‌ । स एव TET Beis भाद पिष्डोदक- रियम्‌ ॥ दुत्तकमी्मासा ?. 36 86. The Ndradasmrtt 197 From verse 22 of the same title the printed text is the same as the smaller version. A verse quoted as Narada’s by Ksirasvamin is not found in the larger version but is found in the smaller version.35: An ancient Ms. of Narada from Nepal dated 1407 A.D. contains two additional chapters on theft and ordeals. Dr. Jolly includes the first as an appendix and omits that on ordeals on the ground that itis not authentic. One of the colophons of the Nepalese Ms. describes it as ‘ iti Manava-dharmagastre Naradaproktayairh sathhi- tayam &८ ` This corroborates what was said above ( pp. 149, 156 ) as to the close connection between Manu and Narada. Narada is not mentioned by Yajfiavalkya in the list of ancient writers on dharma, nor does Pardsara mention him. Visvarapa however quotes a verse of Vrddha-Yajnavalkya (on Yaj. I. 4-5 ), where Nirada is the first among ten expounders of dharma enume- rated therein ( vide note 219 ). The printed Narada contains three introductory chapters on the principles of judicial procedure ( Vyavahara-matrka ) and on the judicial assembly ( sabha ). Then the following titles of law are dealt with one after another :—rnadana ( recovery of debts ), upa- nidhi (deposit, lending, bailment ), sarhbhuiya-samutthana ( part- nership ), dattapradinika ( gifts and resumption thereof ), abhyupe- tya-agusrasa ( breach of contract of service ), vetanasya-anapa- karma (non-payment of wages ), asvamivikraya (sale without ownership ), vikriyasarnpradina (non-delivery after salc ), krita- nugaya (rescission of purchase ), samayasyanapakarma ( violation of conventions of corporations, guilds &c. ), simabandha ( settlement of boundarics ); stripurhsayoga (marital relation); diayabhaga ( partition and inheritance ); sahasa ( offences in which force is the principal element )such as homicide, robbery, rape &c.; vakpa- rusya ( defamation and abuse ) and dandaparusya (hurt of various kinds ); prakirnaka ( miscellaneous wrongs). The appendix deals with theft, though a few remarks are made on that topic under the title of ‘ sahasa. ’ It will be noticed that Narada follows the Manusmrti to a con- siderable extent in the nomenclature and the arrangement of the 3*3 क्षीरस्वामी on the word TIS in अमरकोश quotes the verse am हि मगवान्धर्म- स्तस्य यः दषते कवम्‌ | Which is मनु 8. 16 and क्नान्तिपवै 9. 15, 198 History of Dharmasastra eighteen titles. Some of the titles are differently named by Narada, e. g. he speaks of upanidhi, while Manu employs the word niksepa. Narada scems to have included the svamipalavivada of Manu in vetanasya-anapikarma. He makes one title of वर्च and saméa- hvaya. Narada includes strisarngrahana under sahasa and adds three itles, viz. abhyupetya-asusrasa, vikriyasampradina and prakirnaka. ` The smrticandrika expressly3s+ says that it follows the work of Narada in preference to that of Manu as regards the nomenclature and sequence of the titles of law. Narada follows Manu in speaking of witnesses in the section on rnadina and in treating of theft after the cightcen titles have been dealt with ( vide Manu IX. 256 ff. ). The printed Narada contains 1028 verses (including 61 on theft in the appendix ). About seven hundred of these verses occur in various nibandhas as quotations. Upto the 21st verse of the section ‘abhyupetydsusrisa’ the commentary of Asahiaya furnishes a valuable check for the authenticity of the text. For the remaining portion, there are important data as to its authenticity, sequence and readings. Visvaripa, who belongs to the first half of the 9th century, quotes about fifty verses of Narada (generally by name). The text that he had before him was essentially the same as that of the printed edition, exceptin a very few cases. Out of the seven verses of Narada on ‘samayasya-anapakarma’ Visvartipa quotes five (on Yaj. II. 196 and 196 ) and expressly states that Narada wound up his chapter on that topic with the verse ‘dosavat karanam &c’. as the printed text does. On Yaj. II. 226 Visvarapa distinctly says that the verse ‘yameva hyativarteran’ &c. is followed immediately by ‘mala hyete manusyesu’. This is the case with the printed text also ( dyiitasamahvaya verses 13-14). On Yaj. III. 252 Visvaripa quotes a verse af Narada about the three kinds of wealth, sukla, Sabala and krsna, which does not occur in that form in Narada, though the latter contains similar dicta.335 Vigvardpa contains no quotation from Narada on the topics of Acara or prayascitta. The same is the case with Medhatithi and the Mitaiksari. Medhatithi somewhat inaccurately summarises the 34 नार दीयेद्ुशक्रमानुसरिणश्च वयमित्यनपदययमिहाभिधानम्‌ | 355 ae च शवलं चेव रूष्णं च विविधं धनम्‌ । शुद्खं न्यायार्जितं धम्थानितरइ व्यावहारि- कमू ॥ ; तव्युन्चविधं ज्ञेयं शष्ट शबलमेव च । ष्णं च तस्य विज्ञेया; TAT: सपधा पृथ ॥ ( नारद्‌, ऋणादान 44 ), $6. The Naradasmrit 199 the introductory words (in prose) of Narada (vide note 269 above ). Medhatithi frequently quotes Narada particularly from the sections on mnadana ( vide on Manu 8. 47, 155, 149) and dayabhiga (on Manu 8, 28, 29, and 207, 209, and 143). On- Manu 8, 349 he quotes Narada on partnership (verse 10), on 8. 216 he quot Narada ( vetanasya-anapakarma verse 5 ). In some cases Mesa cites Narada’s verses without naming hime. g. on Manu 9. 76 1८१ quotes the well-known verse ‘nashte myte pravrajite &c.’ ( Narada on marital relation, verse 97) as ‘smrtyantara’. It was shown above (p. 172 ) that the vyavahara section of the Agnipurana dates from about 900 A. D. Chap. 253 of the Agnipurana contains thirty verses of the extant Naradasmrti, viz. Agni 253. 19--9 = Narada ( vyavahara-matrka chap. I. 8-15 ); Agni 253. gb--12 = Narada ( vyavahara-matrka chap. I. 26-292); Agni 253. 13--30 are the verses defining the eighteen titles from rnadana to prakirnaha contained in Narada and occur in the same order in both. The readings preserved in the Agnipurana deserve some discussion. Agni (253. 3-4 ) reads ‘dharmas ca vyavaharas ca... uttarah ptirva- sadhakah’, while Narada has ‘pirvabadhakah’. Agni reads ‘caritrarh sarngrahe [पाऽ rajajnayam tu sadhanam’ ( 253. 5 ), while Narada has ‘caritrarh pustakarane rajajhayaih tu sisanam’. Agni (253.15 ) reads ‘dattvadravyarh ca samyag-yah’, while Narada (dattapradanika 1) reads ‘dattva dravyamasamyag-yaly’. ‘The Agni (253. 11) reads ‘Sanka sadbhistu sarhsargat tattvarh sodhabhidarsanat’ and avoids the rare word ‘hodhabhi- in Narada ‘Sankasatam tu sarhsargit tattvarh hodhabhidarsanat?) = (Vyavaharamatrké I. 27 ). For Narada’s ‘aksabradhnagalakadyair &c.’ ( dytitasamihvaya I) Agni reads ‘Aksavajra &c.’ (253.29). The Mit. (on Yaj. Il. 199 ) and Vir. ( p. 718 ) follow printed Narada in the 195 case and also in the other cases. In the Smrti-candrika, Hemadri, ParasSaramadhaviya and other later nibandhas numerous verses of Narada are quoted on topics of 4cira, sraddha, prayascitta. For example, HemAdri ( caturvarga vol. III. part 2, pp. 159, 183, 185, 223, 235) quotes several verses of Narada on Ekadagi and a verse of Narada about the astrological vega called padmaka. The Smrticandrika (1, pp. 198-199 ) quotes 26 verses on the worship of Narayana, the last of which is the well known verse ‘dhyeyah sada savitrmandala-madhyavarti &c.’ and the same work (on §riddha p. 354) quotes a verse of Narada in which Sunday and Sarhkranti are mentioned. The question arises whether 260 History of Dharmatastra thes¢ quotations of Narada on acara and prayascitta and allied topics are the work of the same Narada that wrote on Vyayahara. From the fact that early writers like Visvarapa, Medhatithi and Vijfianesvara do not contain a single quotation of Narada on topics ther than that of vyavahara, it appears probable that the quotations ^ on acara and prayascitta belong to a later date than the Naradasmyrti on vyavahara and either did not exist in the days of Visvaripa and Medhatithi or had not attained canonical authority in those days. There is in the India Office Library a ms. of Naradasmrti in three chapters and 322 verses dealing exclusively with acara and prayascitta ( vide Jolly’s Introduction p. $ to edition of text ) The Naradasmyti, excluding the introductory passage in prose about the successive abridgments of the original work of Manu by Narada, Markandeya and Sumati Bhargava, is written, in the 61048 metre except in the case of two verses (verse 38 of the 2nd chap. of vyavahara-matrka and the last verse of the chapter on sabha). Narada himself is mentioned by name in connection with the ordeals ( rnadina verse 253 ).355a The first person also occurs in ‘atah param pravaksyami’ (rnadana 343). Acdryas are cited in ‘dattapradanika’ (verse 5). Dharmasastra and arthasastra are mentioned (vyavaharamatrka, chap. I, 37 and 39 ) and Narada lays down the rule as in Yaj. (II. 21) that in a conflict between the two the former should furnish the rule of conduct.35° Narada refers to Vasistha’s rule about interest (rnadina 99). Two verses are quoted from a Purana.357 Manu is named in several places ( rnadana verses 250, 251, 326 ).358 The first passage about Manu is quoted by Visvarapa on Yaj. (II. 98) and corresponds closely with the teaching of Manu (8. 113). But the other passages 8658 सन्दिग्धर्थमियुकतानां विशुद्ध्यर्थं इुरत्मनाम्‌ । OB नारदेनेह सत्यान॒तविशुद्धये ॥ $56 यत्र विप्रतिपत्तिः स्याद्मशाखार्थशाखयोः | अथशाखोक्तमुत्सृज्य धमंशास्ोक्त माचरेत्‌ ॥ $57 पुराणोक्त gl श्छोको भवतः । यः परा प्रहिणयास्स्वां वाचं Game: । आत्मार्थ रि न कुयौत्स पापो नरकनि्मैगरः ॥ वाच्यथां नियताः सर्वै बाड्मूला aaah Pam: | यो हि तां स्तेनयेद्वाचं स सर्वसतयरुन्नरः ॥ नारद्‌ ( ऋणादून 227-228 ), 358 सत्य॑ वाहनशस्।णि गोधीजकनकादि च । ... इत्येते शपथाः मोचा भनुना श्वस्प- कारणे | ऋणादान 248, 250; दैवं परञविधं ्ञेयमित्याह भगवान्मनुः | ऋणादान 25: छायानिषेशितो रक्ष्यो दिनशेषममोजनः । विषवेगङ्कमातीतः ygisat Face ॥ ऋणादान 326 $6. The Ndradasmrti 201 crediting Manu with dividing ordeals into five kinds and giving his view about poison ordeal have no corresponding passage in the extant Manu. Therefore Narada had a version of Manu before him that was somewhat different in certain respects from our Manu or Narada may be referring to Vrddha or Brhat Manu. Besides this there is one remarkable fact to be noted about the relation of Manu and Narada. There are about 50 verses that are common to Manu and Narada. Manu 8. 12-14 and 18-19 are Narada (sabha, verses 8-10 and 12-13 in a different order), Manu 8. 140-141=N. (gnadana ‘99-100 ), Manu 8. 148-149 =N. (rnidana 80-81 ), M. 8. 143=N. (r. 129, M. 8. 64=N. (r. 177), M. 8. 72=N. (rp. 189), M. 8. 93 and 113 =N. (r. 199, 201), M.:98-99=N. (r. 208, 209 and Udyogaparva 35.33- 34), M. 8. 89=N. (4. 225), M. 8. 186-187, 189, 797 = N. ( upanidhi 10-13), M. 8. 232-233, 235 = N. ( vetanasya-anapakarma 14-16 in a different order), M. 9. 47=N. ( marital relation, verse 28 ), M. 8. 224-225 = पि. ( marital relation, 33-34), M. 9. 357-358=N. ( marital relation, 65-66 in reverse order), M. 9. 3=N. ( dayabhaga 31), M. 9. 216 =N. (dayabhiga 44), M. 8. 267-269 =N. (vakparusya 15-17), M. 9. 270-272 = N. (vakparusya 22-24 ), M. 8. 281-284 = N. (danda-parusya 26-29 ), M. 4. 87 = दि, ( prakirnaka 44 ) Narada ( rnadana 158 ) ‘Srotriyas-tapasa vrddha ye ca pravrajita narah | asaksinas-te vacanan natra heturudahrtah’ has probably Manu 8.65 in view where we read ‘na saksi. . . na Srotriyo na lifgastho na satigebhyo vinirgatah’. Besides these there are several cases where Narada closely agrees with Manu though the verses are not identical, e. g. Narada ( sthasa 19 ) may be compared with Manu 9. 271 and Narada ( appendix on theft, verses 1-4.) may be compared with Manu ( 9. 256-260 ). These facts establish that Narada is based on a version of Manu that was essentially the same as the extant text of Manu, though there was some difference here and there. Narada contains several verses that occur in the Mahabharata. Forexample, Santi rrr. 66 = N. ( vyavahara-matrka 72 ),359 Udyoga 35. $8 = N. (sabha, verse 18 ), Udyoga 35. 31-32 = N. (1. 202-203). There are several cases where the text of Kautilya agrees with 859 aaag इश्यते FI संयोतो इन्यवाडिव । म aS विदयते व्योम्नि न Wats हुताशनः ॥ ह्व, 2, 26. $02 History of + Narada.3© In some of these cases the agreement is almost word for, word.3 Though Narada is based on Manu, he differs in several essential matters from Manu. We have seen the difference between them in the nomenclature of the titles of law. Manu only casually mentions the ordeals of fire and water (8.114), while Narada enumerates five kinds of ordeals, describes them at length and adds two more viz. taydula-bhaksana and taptamasa ( ynadana, verses 259-348 ). He allows Niyoga ( marital relation, verses 80-88 ), while Manu strongly condemns it. He allows remarriage of women ( Narada, marital relation, 97 ), while Manu is against it. Manu mentions seven kinds of slaves ( 8. 415 ), while Narada raises their number to fifteen ( abhupety4susris4, verses 26-28 ) ; Manu con- demns gambling outright (9. 221-228 ), while Narada allows it under state control and as a source of revenue ; Narada is further far more systematic than Manu and is full of divisions and _ subdivi- sions. For example, he divides property intothree kinds, each of which is again subdivided into seven varieties ( rnadana 44-47 ) ; Narada divides the law of gift into four sections, which are further subdivided into 32; he subdivides the eighteen titles into 132 ( vyavahara-matrka I. 25 ) There are a few points which are almost peculiar to Narada, such as the fourteen kinds of impotent persons (stripurmsayoga 11-13), the three kinds of punarbhas and four kinds of svairinis (ibid. verses 45-52 ). Narada is probably later than Yajnavalkya. Yaj. knows only five kinds of ordeals, while Narada knows seven and the former's treatment of them is not so exhaustive as Narada’s. The rules of judicial procedure in Narada are more systematic and exhaustive than those of Yaj. Narada contains more definitions than Yaj. In some respects however Narada is more conservative than Yaj. For example, Narada nowhere recognises the rights of the widow to † ०० व ग गण्य a रि 860 Compare कोरटिस्य, धमस्थीय, chap. I, verses at the end with ajqq, व्यवहार मानका 18४ ohap., verses 2, 10-11, 39-40. $61 धर्मश्च व्यवहारण्य BRA राजरा।सनम्‌ | चतुष्पाद्‌ ष्यवहारोयमु्तरः Tarp ॥ तत्र सत्ये स्थितो धर्मो व्यवहारस्तु साक्षिषु । जरित्र पुस्तकरणे राजाज्ञायां तु शासनम्‌ ॥ MIT, भ्यवहारमातका I. 10-11; the first half in each verseis the same in © कोटिल्य, 84, The Naradasmeti 208 succeed to her deceased husband as Yaj. does; Narada gives no rules about the succession of gotrajas and bandhus as Yaj. does. Ina few respects Narada agrees with the views of Manu instead of with Y4j., such as allowing a Brihmana to marry a $adra woman. Narada regards sexual intercourse with a pravrajita (female ascetic ) as a mortal sin ( striputhsayoga 74-75 ), while both Manu (8. 363 ) and Yaj. (II. 293 ) treat it lightly. Taking all these things into consideration it may be said that Narada flourished nearly at the same time as or somewhat later than Y4j. Narada contains several rare words such 35 र" hodha” (in vyavaharamatrka I. 27, meaning ‘one’s property when lost or stolen’). He gives expression to certain principles of law and politics, such as that a man is master of his own house, in other words, a man’s house is his castle 53५ he highly eulogises the office of king, almost assigning it a divine origin and exhorts the people to obey and honour even a weak and undeserving king.3®} Mr. Jayasval sees in this and in the fact that Narada speaks of dinara while the Mrccha- katika speaks of nanaka indications that Narada belongs to the fourth century, is later than the drama, is propping up the authority of a new dynasty and flourished under the Imperial Guptas ( C. W. N. vol. 17, p. ccLxxxv ). He regards a person as minor till the sixteenth year.36+ This limit was probably first fixed by Narada. Narada further boldly says that in case of conflict between dharma- Sastra and usages, the latter have to be followed, as they are directly observed.3°s As Narada’s is regarded as an authoritative smrti by Visvarapa, Medhatithi and other later writers and as Asahaya, whois mentioned by name in the commentary of Visvarapa, wrote a comment on 362 च्रयः स्वतन्ध्रा ठोकेस्मिम्याजावार्यस्तथव च । प्रतिवण च सर्वेषां वणानां स्वे गृहे गही || ऋणादान $2. This idea occurs in शान्तिपर्व 321. 147 “सर्वः स्वे स्वि गृही राजा". 363 Vide sftates verses 20-22 aia संचरत्येष भमो साक्षात्‌ सदस्रदक्‌ । न तस्या- जञामतिक्रम्य PAGEL परजाः कचित्‌ ॥... नियेलोपि यथा श्रीणां ea एव पतिः सदा । परजानां विगणो्येवं yer एव मजापतिः ॥ S64 बाल आ Sag वर्षात्‌ पोगण्ड इति शस्यते । परतो व्यवहारज्ञः श्वतन्प्रः पिनरो विना ॥ ऋणादान २536, 365 धरमशास्लविरोधे तु युक्तियक्तो विधिः स्मतः । SUTRA हि यद्धदान्धमस्तेनावहीयते ॥ व्यवहुरमातुका ५0, 204 History of Dharmatasira Narada, the Naradasmrti must be older by some centuries than the 8th century, the latest date to which Asahiya can be assigned Baha in his Kadambari compares the royal palace to Naradiya.3* Ordinarily Naradiya standing by itself would denote the Narada- “ purana ( compare Visnu-purana 3. 6. 21 where we have the form Naradiya for the purana ). The Narada-purina ( Venkatesvara Press edition, Bombay ) contains, however, no treatment of rija- dharma. Bana may have intended a violent pun, meaning ‘the palace where the duties of kings were being expounded ( avarnyamana ), like the Naradiya in which rijadharma has not been set forth (avarnyamana).’ European scholars like Dr. Jolly and Buhler hold that Bana refers to the extant Naradasmsti. But on this explanation also the difficulty is not entirely got over. The extant Narada can hardly be described as a treatise on rajadharma. It deals only in an indirect way with one aspect of the king’s duties and is rather con- cerned with vyavahara and the duties of the subjects towards each other from the strictly legal point of view. If we turn to the Maha- 01127414 and other works, we shall find that rajadharma meant some- thing different from what is treated of in the Naradasmrti. There- fore Bana’s reference to the Naradiya is of a doubtful character. The Rajaniti-ratnakara of Candesvara frequently quotes Narada on politics( pp. 3, 13, 79 ). These quotations are not traced in the printed Narada. Therefore it is highly probable that Bana refers to a distinct work of Narada on politics which has not yet been recovered The Vyavaharamatrka of Jimatavahana and the Parasara-MAdha- viya ( vol. III, part I, p. 203 ) quote a verse from Narada, the latter half of which is the same as the latter half of a verse in the Vikramorvasiya.367 The doctrine attributed to Narada is found in ५2]. (II. 20 ) and the Visnudharmasatra, ( 6. 22 ) but not in the same words. Unfortunately the date of Kalidasa is far from being universally accepted, but the fourth or first half of the sth century is often accepted as the probable date. There is further diffi- 366 « नारदीयमिवावण्यंमानराजधमंम्‌ ( THES ) p. 91 of Peterson's ed 367 अनेकाथाभियुक्तेन सव॑द्रभ्यापलापिना | विभावितेकदेशेन देयं यदभियुज्यते ॥ aap (on याज्ञ. 7. 20), TATA Of जी Pp. 310-11; दंस प्रयश्छ मे कान्तां गतिरस्यास्त्वया हृता । विभाविते ... युज्यते ॥ विक्रमोर्वशीय 10. 17 (Pandit’s ed), $6. The Naradasmrti 205 culty in the fact that the text of the Vikramorvasiya has been largely tampered with. If the verse is a genuine part of the drama, it seems natural to suppose that Kalidasa turns a well-known legal maxim to a somewhat humerous use. It is hard to suppose that Narada would borrow the words of a dramatist for setting forth a legal\ maxim. This would pushyback the date of Narada far beyond the sth century. Narada in two places uses the word ^" dinara”, once in the sense of a golden ornament and again as a coin or unit of value also called ‘‘suvarna.” In this last case he says that ^ dinara is equal to 48 Karsipanas or twelve dhinakas.” Jolly ( R.u, $, p. 23 ) thinks that Indian dinaras can scarcely be older than the 2nd century A. D., although in the times of the Indo-Scythian kings coins of the weight of dinara occur. Therefore Jolly is of opinion that Narada is laterthan 300 A. D. Winternitz ( History of Indian Literature, vol. II. p. 27160. 4 ) follows him in this assumption that all Sanskrit works in which the word dinara occurs must be later than the 2nd or 3rd century A. D. It may be that the golden dinaras most numerously found in India belong to the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D. But as Keith points out (J. R. A. S. 1915 p. 504) Jolly’s assumption is wrong and the introduction of dindras into India need not be later than the beginning of the Christian era. Golden dindras were first coined in Rome in 207 B.C. and the oldest Indian pieces corresponding in weight to the Roman Denarius were struck by Indo-Scythian kings who reigned from the first century ए, €. ( ५५. B. p. 44). Therefore there is nothing to prevent us from holding that Narada flourished in the first centuries of the Christian era, i.e. between 100 and 300 A. D. Mr. Jayasval assigns him to the 4th century A. 0. and after the Mrcchakatika. Most scholars would not be prepared to assign to the Mrcchakatika so early a date as the 3rd century A.D. Besides Mr. Jayasval builds his theory on very slender foundations. Because the drama employs the word nanaka and Narada speaks of dinara only, no chronological conclusion as to the priority of the one to the other can be drawn. After both words became current in the language, one author, though later, may employ one word, while another, though earlier, may employ the other. 868 मणयः Garment दीनारादि हिरण्मयम्‌ । मुकाविद्रुमशङ्गायाः wer: स्वामिगामिनः ॥ नारद्‌, भ्यवहारमातृका 71. 3५; काषापणोण्डिका गेया ताश्चतस्नस्तु धानकः । तद्‌- द्वादश Tareq दीनाराख्यः स एव च ॥ परिशिष्ट verse 60. 206 History of Dharmaéastra It is difficult to say anything as to the home of Narada, In the appendix on theft Narada in one place says that in the south a silver karsipana is current, that in the east it is equalto twenty panas and that he does not follow the standard of karsipana current j'in the land of the five rivers.369 From these data and from the fact that the oldest mss. of Narada come fram Nepal and that an old commentary on Narada in Newari was composed in Nepal, Dr. Jolly conjectures that Narada’s home was to be sought in Nepal. This is all pure guess-work. There is no reason why Narada could not have hailed from central India. The places where the oldest and best mss. of a work are found can hardly ever be indications of the original home of an ancient author. Bhamaha is by common consent a Kashmirian writer on Poetics, but the only mss. of: his work so far found come from southern India. Prof. Dr. Bhandarkar (Carmichael Lectures 1918, p. 90), probably following the Nayacandrika, hazards the conjecture that the writer called Pisuna cited in the Kautiliya is another name of Narada. Beyond the bare fact that Narada is often credited in the puranas with the role of instigating feuds and quarrels and that the word pisuna means ‘‘wicked, back-biter’, there is nothing to support this identification. A Jyotir-Nirada is quoted by Bhattoji in his commentary on the Caturvirhsatimata ( p. 11 ). A Brhan-Nirada is quoted by Raghunandana and a Laghu-Narada in the Nirnayasindhu and the Sarhskara-Kaustubha. In the Mahabharata several opinions are attributed to Narada. Onc of them condemns the eating of flesh.37° The first half of the last verse is the same as Manu $. 52. Narada is credited with having divided utpitas ( portents ) into three varieties.37'_ Narada is said to have held the view that one must always be active.37?_ It appears that all these views are taken from some work or works of a Nirada. 369 कार्षापणो दुक्षिणक्यां fara रोप्यः saa । पणर्नियद्धुः पूर्वस्यां ute पणाः स त॒ ॥... पाश्चनयाः प्रदेशे त॒ Be या व्यावहारिकी । काषौपणधमाणं तु निबदुमिह ने- तया ॥ चोथप्रतियेधप्रकरण 57 and 5. 370 स्वमांसं परमसिन यो वर्धयितुमिच्छति । नारदः पराह धमौत्मा नियतं सोधसीदति ॥ अनुशासन 115. 14. | 371 उत्पानांखिविधान्‌ प्राह नारदो भगवानृषिः । दिर्याश्येवान्तरिक्षांश्च पार्थिवाश्च पितामह ॥ सभ] 46. 8-9 972 तद्नत्करमैव कर्तव्यमिति होव।च Fez: । उयोगपृवं ५9, $7. Brhaspat $07 The first is probably taken from Narada’s version of the Manusmyjti of which the puranas speak as stated above ( note 270 ). For Asahaya the commentator of Narada vide section 58 below. 37. Brhaspati Brhaspati as a sitra writer on politics has been dealt with above (section 26). In this section Brhaspati the jurist will be spoken of. The complete smyti of Brhaspati on law has not yet been discovered. It will be, when discovered, a very precious monument of ancient ‘India, exhibiting the high-water mark of Indian acumen in strictly legal principles and definitions. Dr. पाला collected together 84 verses ascribed to Brhaspati in the legal treatises of Aparirka and others with German translation and notes (Leipzig, 1879) and Dr. Jolly collected about 711 verses of Brhaspati on law and translated them in the Sacred Books of the East ( vol. 33 ) Yaj. (I. 4-5) enumerates Brhaspati among the writers on dharma, but he is probably referring to Brhaspati’s work on politics. The com. on the Nitivakyamrta (7. 7) quotes the first verse of Brhaspati’s Nitisastra. We saw above how Brhaspati closely follows the extant Manu- smrti, how he pointedly refers to the text of Manu (notes 282-286) and therefore might by analogy be styled a vartikakara of Manu. In many places Brhaspati explains and illustrates the laconic treatment of Manu. Manu (8. 153 ) speaks of four varities of interest ( Cakra, Kala, Karita, and Kayika), but does not explain these terms. Brhaspati explains them clearly.373 Manu ( 8. 49 ) enumerates five modes of recovering a debt (dharma, vyavahira, chala, Acarita, bala ) but leaves them unexplained ; Brhaspati devotes several verses to the explanation of these terms ( vide Kulluka on Manu 8. 49). Brhaspati gives elaborate rules regarding partnership. Brhaspati enumerates nine ordeals (of fire, water, poison, balance, 1064, taptamasa, tandulas, dharmadharma, phala); while Manu barely alludes to two. Manu devotes only three verses to sarhvidvyatikrama (8. 219-221 ), but Brhaspati must have devoted at least a score of verses to this topic, as Aparirka alone quotes 17 verses of Brhaspati on this title ee 873 Vide eggs on मन्‌ 8.153; ताता स्वरूपमाह बहस्पतिः | कायेका कायक्षंयक्ता मस- ग्राह्या च कालिका । बदवेद्धिश्चकरवृ दधिः कारिता ऋणिना कृता ॥ 208 History of Dharmatastra The order in which the topics of law appeared in Brhaspati can be settled with tolerable certainty from the quotations in Apararka, Vivadaratnakara, Viramitrodaya and others works. It was as follows :—the four stages of a law-suit, proof (kriya, human of three sorts and divine ), witnesses ( of 12 kinds ), documents (ten kinds), bhukti ( possession ), ordeals (nine), 18 titles, rnadana, niksepa, asvamivikraya, sarhbhiya-samutthana, dattapradanika, abhyupetya- Susriisa, vetanasya-anapakarma, svamipalavivada, sarhvid-vyatikrama, vikriyasarhpradana, simavivada, parusya ( of two kinds ), sahasa (of three kinds ), strisarhngrahana, stripurhdharma, vibhaga, dyita, samahvaya, prakirnaka (otherwise called ‘ nrpasgraya vyavahara, ’ wrongs for which proceedings are set on foot by the king ). Brhaspati was probably the first jurist to make a clear distinction between civil and criminal justice.37# He divided the eighteen titles into two groups, those springing from wealth ( 14 titles )and those springing from injury to beings ( 4 titles ). This distinction was probably dimly perceived by even Gautama, when he says that in disputes based on injury there is no hard and fast rule about witnesses (i.e. about their interest in the subject of dispute ).375 Brhaspati like Narada lays down the rule that a legal decision should not be arrived at merely on the basis of astra and that whena decision is devoid of reasoning, there is loss of dharma, for even a good man may be held to be a bad one or what is good may be held to be sinful in a judicial proceeding, just as Mandavya was held to bea thief on a decision without thoughtful reasoning.}7° Brhaspati gives such elaborate definitions and rules about procedure from the filing of the plaint to the passing of the decree that he can very well stand comparison with modern legislators on the same subjects. 974 तदाह बृहस्पतिः । द्विपदो ष्यवहार्य धनष्तासमुद्धवः | Rare हिसामूट- भ्यतु्विंधः ॥ ब्यवद्भरमातृका Of जीमूतं ° 7. 277 ; vide also स्म॒तिच० ( ध्व, 2.9 ) ‹ पार्ष्ये द्वे वधश्येव पर्मीसंग्रहस्तथा | Pass चत्वारि पदान्याह य॒हस्पतिः १. 375 न पीडाकृते निबन्धः । गो. ध. सु. 13. 9 on which हरदत्त says ‘Wigner हिंसा- विषये । साक्षिणां निबन्धो न निरुष्यः। अर्थसंबन्धादि न किंचिदपि दूषणे भवति.।' 976 केवलं शास्लमाधित्य न केभ्यो हि निर्णयः । ghegia विचारे तु धमद्मनिः प्रजायते ॥ जोरोऽचोरो साध्वसाधु जायेत ग्यवहारतः। युक्तिं विना विचारेण माण्डव्यश्योरतां गतः ॥ quoted by अपराकं ०० याज्ञ. II. 1 ; compare नारद्‌ ( ब्यवहारमातका chap. I. ५४ ) 3 यात्यचोरोपि बोरत्वं चार्यायात्यचोरताम्‌ । अचोरण्बोरतां प्रातो भाण्डल्यो ` BATA: ॥ For the story of माण्डम्य, who kept silent, vide Adiparva 107, $7. Brhaspah $09 Narada and Brhaspati agree very closely in several respects For example, both speak of three kinds of proof, four parts of a judicial proceeding, almost the same defects of plaints, four kinds of answer, four divisions of the law of gift and their subdivisions, five modes of recovering debts, four kinds of sahasa. We have seen that Narada departs from Manu in several essen- tial matters. On the other hand Brhaspati follows Manu very closely. But he too differs on some points from Manu,.for example, we saw above how Brhaspati dissents from Manu on the question of the divi- sibility of clothes &c. (note 285). He appears to differ from Manu as to the maximum interest allowed on corn, fruit, wool and_ beasts of burden.377, Manu and Nirada are both silent as to the widow’s right to succeed to her deceased husband’s estate. But Brhaspati agreeing with Yajiavalkya makes her the first heir of her sonless husband.378 . These considerations make it clear that Brhaspati is certainly later than Manu and Y4j. It is difficult to state his exact relation- ship to Narada. He agrees more closely with Manu than Narada does, but in some respects such as definitions and the rights of women he shows great advance over Nirada. So he is probably a contemporary of or not much later than Narada. He employs the word nanaka.37? He defines a dinara, also called ^ suvarna =, as equal to twelve dhanakas and says that a dhanaka was equal to four andikas, an andika being a copper pana weighing a karsa and bear- ing a stamp.38° This agrees with what Narada says about dinira. 377 हिरण्ये द्विगुणा ase वखकुप्यके । धान्ये चतुरीणा पोक्ता शदे TA ठवेषु च ॥ युहस्पाते quoted by HATS ०" यान्न II. 39; compare मनु 8. 151 378 आम्नाये SATA च लोकाचारे च सूरिभिः । शरीराधं स्मरता भार्या पुण्यापुण्यफले समा ॥ यस्य॒ नोपरता भायां SET तस्य जीवति । जीवत्यधशरीरेथं कथमन्यः समाञ्ुयात्‌ ॥ सदुल्यर्वियमानेस्तु पितुभ्रात॒सनाभिभिः। असुतस्य प्रमीतस्य पत्नी तद्भगहञरिणी ॥ बृहस्पति ५१००४०५ by अपराकं ०४ याज्ञ. 7. 185. The Mit, has the last verse. $79 Scraqarrsea परकेनाणकवेदिमिः ॥ अपरां on यङ्क, IT. 259 ; fa, ₹, P. 711 and ite p. 38 $80 Vide note 568 above. arrestee ag Raa: कार्षिकः पणः । स एव चाण्डिका ` ` ` ` प्रोक्ता वाश्यतस्रश्त॒धानका ॥ ता Ia सवणेस्त्‌ दीनाराख्यः स एव त्‌ । Tze quoted in श्यतिष् ® p. 99, वि, ₹, », 667. कात्यायन्‌ is quoted on sama page by the eAferqe for a similar definition. ४, D. 27 210 History of Dharivaégastra Dr. Jolly ( S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 276) assigns Brhaspati to the 6th or {५ century A.D. But this is much later by several centuries than € evidence warrants. Katyayana was looked upon as an authori- jtative writer along with Narada and Brhaspati by Visvarapa and ` Medhatithi. This position he could not have attained in a century or two. 30. he cannot be Placed _larer_tuan,_te 60 century than the 6th centu Katyayana 1 several places quotes Brhaspati as an authority Apararka quotes Katyayana as saying that according to Brhaspati pastures, ways, clothes that are worn on the body, debts ( or books for use according to others ) and what is set apart for religious purposes should not be partitioned.3*: Katyayana says that accord- ing to Brhaspati, that wealth which a man acquires by means of his learning after refuting an opponent in a contest with a stake for the winner is styled ‘‘ vidyadhana ” and is not liable to partition3® $ and what is acquired through valour &c. by persons that were taught in the family or learnt under their father should be parti- tioned among the brothers, according to Brhaspati. If a man falsely denics his liability and if only a part of the claim is brought home to him, then he should be made to pay the whole.3*3 That the statement of a witness may be relied upon on a matter under his direct perception owing to his being near the plaintiff and the defen- dant and not otherwise; so says Brhaspati.3*+ The foregoing examples show that Katyayana looked upon Brhaspati as an autho- rity who must therefore have flourished several centuries before. Therefore Brhaspati cannot be placed later than the 4th century ^. ०, As he knew the extant Manusmrt, was later than Yaj. and probably than Narada Brhasp ati must have flourished between 200 and 400 A. D. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that Visvarapa quotes, without making any difference, prose and verse passages of Brhaspati and thereby shows that in his opinion the jurist Brhaspati १० 7 1 OE ee 7 ND | SRN eC Me 881 गोप्रचारश्च रण्या च वं यं्ौङ्गयोजितम्‌ । प्रयोज्यं न विभज्येत धमां च बहस्पतिः ॥ वि, र्‌, ४, 505 and RAAT ०० याज्ञ IT. 119 88? परं निरस्य awed वियात श॒तपुवकम्‌ । वियाधनं तु altars विभाज्यं बहस्पतिः ॥ quoted by अपराकं on या II. 119; OT. Ar ITI. 2. p. 559 86 सवांपलापं यः कृत्वा मिथ्यास्पमपि संवदेत्‌ । सर्वमेव तु द्य स्यादिति युक्तो षडस्पतिः॥ a अर्थिपस्यर्थिसानिभ्यादनुरतं तु यद्भवेत्‌ | aged साक्षिणो वाक्वमन्यथाह अहस्पतिः ॥ quoted in the ष्यवहारमालुका of जीमूत, p. 917, 87, Brhaspati 211 (in verse ) was identical with the political writer Brhaspati and was a very ancient writer in his day. Medhatithi (on Manu 9. 153) quotes the verse “‘na pratigrahabhir ” (ascribed to Brhaspati by others ) as Smptyantara. Brhaspati is cited in a few cases as referring to his own views in the third person3®s ; some- times he uses the first person also.38* Nothing can be said about his country at present. In a well-known passage Brhaspati refers to the usages of the southern people, of the people in the MadhyadeSa, of the eastern and northern people.3®7 In a striking and beautiful passage Brhaspati compares vyavahara with yajiia,3® the king with Visnu, the successful party with the sacrificer and the defeated party with the victim, the plaint and the reply to food and the pratijfia to the sacrificial offering ( prepared from food ), the Sastras to the three Vedas and the sabbyas to the priests in a sacrifice. Brhaspati seems to have been very fond of such long-drawn metaphors. 3®9 The Smrticandrika quotes about seventy verses of Brhaspati in the Ahnika portion and about forty on Sraddha. In the later works like the Parisara~Madhaviya, the Nirnayasindhu and Sarhskara- Kaustubha, the number of verses quoted from Brhaspati is much larger than even those quoted by the Smrticandrika. Those verses are quoted on such sarhskdras as purhsavana, namakarana, caula, upanayana, vivaha and also on 4Sauca and purification of dravyas. Even the Mitaksara quotes several verses of Brhaspati on matters ee 0 ee वक व 4 ee ~~ कन्‌ ee ~= a ee - ~~ ~~ ०0 (नोनि 885 ताडनं बन्धनं चेव तथेव च विडन्नकम्‌ । एष दण्डो हि शूद्रस्य नार्थदण्डो बृहस्पतिः ॥ परा, मा, TL. 1. 2. 212; स्म॒तिच° 586 एष दण्ड; समाख्यातः पुरुषापेक्षया मया | १०५०४०० by अपराकं ०० याज्ञ. II. 211. 987 squat दाक्षिणव्येमातुलस्य सुता द्विजः । मध्यदेशे कमेकराः शिल्पिनश्च गवाशचिनः ॥ मत्स्यादा् नराः पूर्वै न्यमिचाररताः कियः। उत्तरे मयपा नायः स्पृश्य नृणां रजस्वलाः ॥ वीर, ०.२०, sq, न, &९6 888 यज्ञे संपूज्यते विष्यान्यवहारे महीपतिः । जवी तु यजमानोश्न जितः पशुरुदाहृतः ॥ एर्वपक्षोच्तरावायं प्रतिज्ञा च हविः स्मरता । धरया शास्ाणि सभ्यास्त॒. ऋत्विजो दक्षिणा- दने ॥ quoted in eq घा, ०. 884 $80 ०. &. विपो धर्महुमस्यादिः स्कन्द्शाज्ञे महीपतिः । सचिवाः पृञ्नपुष्पाणि फलं न्यायेन पालनम्‌ ॥ यशो वित्तं फलरसो मोगोपग्हपूजनम्‌ । ७जेयत्वं sedis: स्वगे स्थानं TUPI ॥ वीर्‌ ० p14. Compare नारद्‌ (ष्य, ay, 7, 33 for the sgcong verse ), 218 History of Diarntatdstra other than vyavahara. For example the Mit. on Y4j. I. 210 quotés a verse of Brhaspati that a nivartana ( of land) is equal to 30 dandas in area ( danda being seven cubits in length) and tes nivartanas are equal to a gocarma9° On Yaj. Il. 17 the Mit. ` quotes two verses of Brhaspati about impurity on birth or death &c. On Yaj. III. 21 the Mit. cites the definition of degantara given by Brhaspati.39! On Yaj. III. 24 the Mit. quotes Brhaspati’s opinion that the period of mourning on the death of one’s maternal grandfather, Aicarya or Srotriya is three days. On ४३). III. 253 the Mit. quotes Brhaspati’s rule as to priyascitta for consciously drinking wine Vide also Mit. on Yaj. III. 30, 250, 254, 260, 290 for othe, quotations from Brhaspati The foregoing therefore establishes that Brhaspati was known at least to the Mi-and later writers as an expounder in verse not only of vyavahara but also of other topics of dharma as well. As over a thousand verses of Brhaspati ( including about 800 on vyavahara ) are quoted it appears that his work must have been an extensive one comprising several thousand verses Such a work of Brhaspati has yet to be recovered The Mit. on Y4j. III. 261 quotes a Vrddha-Brhaspati on the nine varieties of sarnkara.393 Kullika on Manu ( 9. 181) cites a verse of Vrddha-Brhaspati about the eleven subsidiary sons (vide note 283 above, where the verse is ascribed to Brhaspati). Hemadri ( Caturvarga vol. III, part 2, p. 472 ) quotes a Jyotir-Brhaspati on the prohibition of a graddha on the thirteenth tithi of the dark half. Apararka on Y4j. II. 3-4 quotes three verses from Vrddha-Brhaspati 500 संपहृस्तेन दण्डेन fg quar निवतेनम्‌ । दृश तान्येव गोचभे TTT श्वं महीयते ४ A similar verse occurs in the यृहृस्पतिस्मति ( Jivananda part I. 0. 645) where the reading is दशहस्तेन 391 महानयन्तर यश्र गिरिवा व्यवधायकः । वाचो यत्र विमियन्ते तदू वेशान्तरमुष्यते ॥ देशान्तरं वदन्त्येके ष्टियोजनमायतमू | अत्वारिशद्रदन्त्यन्ये yet तथव च ॥ 392 सुरापाने कामशृते ज्वलन्तीं at विनिक्षिपेत्‌। मुखे तया aoe मृतः शुद्धिमवाच्नुषात्‌ & 303 यथाह वुदबहस्पतिः । एकशययासमं पद्धिमोण्डपडधन्नमिभ्रणम्‌ । याज योनिस्तथा च सह भोजनम्‌ । नवध संकर रो न कनया, ay a ascribed to agent by the गृहस्थरत्नाकर (folio 180a of 7.0, $7, Brhaspati 213: about the derivation of the word “prad-vivaka” and one on the punishment for sabhyas who take bribes. Three of these verses are ascribed to Brhaspati in the Parasara-Madhaviya and other works and one of them to Katyayana in the Vyavahara—matrka, 38, Katyayana Narada, Brhaspati and Katyayana form a triumvirate in the realm of the ancient Hindu Law and procedure. The work of Katyayana on vyavahara, like that of Brhaspati, has yet to be recovered, The following account is based on the quotations from Katyayana contained in about a dozen works from Visvarapa to the Viramitrodaya. Katyayana is enumerated as one of the expounders of dharma by Sankha-Likhita, Yajiiavalkya (I. 4-5) and Paragara. A Katya. is quoted as an authority in the Baudhayanadharmasitra (I. 2. 47). A Srautasitra and Sraddhakalpa of the white Yajurveda are ascribed to Katyayana. Katyayana appears to have taken Narada and Brhaspati as his models in the order and treatment of the subjects to be dealt with in vyavahara. He closely follows both the writers in terminology and technique. On_ several points he presupposes Narada and expounds and elucidates the latter’s dicta. For example, Narada (Intro. chap. I. ro-11 ) lays down that vyavahara has four padas, each later one prevailing over the preceding, viz. dharma, vyavahara, caritra, rajaSdsana ( note 361 ) and then Narada very briefly in one verse explains these four terms. Katyayana on the other hand devotes at least nine verses to the elucidation of the rule as to each succeeding one prevailing over its predecessor.39* Narada contains very little on the topic of stridhana ( dayabhaga chap. verses 8-9 ). He merely enumerates the six kinds of stridhana and then lays down the rule of succession. Katyayana’s treatment of stridhana has attained classical rank. It-appears that he was probably the first to carefully define the several kinds of stridhana (such as adhyagni, adhyavahanika, pritidatta, Sulka, anvadheya, saudayika), to lay down woman’s power of disposal over the several varieties of stri- dhana and to prescribe lines of devolution as to stridhana. The verses on this topic occurring in the nibandhas number about thirty. 9८ Vide प्रा, मा, Vou. ए, part I, pp. 16-17, and वीषु P- 9-10, 120-18}. 214 History of Dharmatietra The leading nibandhas contain only a few quotations from Brhaspati on stridhana. Hence it may be surmised that Katyayana probably was the first smrti writer to give elaborate rules on this topic. It has been already shown (notes 381-384) how Katyayana often quotes the views of Brhaspati. A few more examples may be added here. According to Brhaspati, says Katyayana, when a man who stands surety with others on a joint liability goes abroad, his son would have to pay the whole debt, but if the man dies then the son would be liable for his father’s share only.395 When cattle stray into fields, gardens, houses or cowpens, they may be, according to Brhaspati, caught hold of (by the ear &c.) or beaten.396 According to Brhaspati, a man of the ksatriya, vaisya or Sidra caste may employ one of his own caste to do the work of a dasa (slave or serf ), but even a Brahmana could never employ another Brahmana in the same way.397 ^ About a dozen nibandhas on vyavahara quote about 900 verses of Katyayana on vyavahira, the Smpticandrika alone citing about 600 of them. In these verses Katydyana refers at least a score of times to the views of Bhrgu. It is remarkable that only a few of the views ascribed to Bhrgu are found in the extant Manusmfti. Katyayana says, according to Bhrgu, whatever (ancestral ) wealth was concealed by one coparcener from others, whatever was badly divided should be divided in equal shares when afterwards discovered ( Parisara~-Madhaviya III, p. 566 ). This may well be compared with Manu 9. 215. Katyayana 5055 according to Bhrgu, it is not Brahmana-murder to kill an Atatdyin who is foremost by his austerities, learning and caste. This has in view Manu 8. 360. Kullika distinctly says that Katyayana simply explains the verse of Manu by referring to it as Bhrgu’s. On the other hand there are several places where the views ascribed to Bhrgu find no counterpart in the extant Manu. According to 995 एकच्छायाभ्रिते स्वं TAY भोषिते सुतः । मरते पितरि at परणं न यृहस्पतिः ॥ परा, मा, ITI, p. 251. 396 दचारामविवीतेषु Tey पशुपादिषु । wet तत्पविष्टानां तानं वा बृहस्पतिः ॥ वि, ₹, 7. 241 ® ॐ9 क्षत्रविद्‌ द्रधमेस्तु समवर्णे कदाचन । कारयेद्‌ दासकर्माणि ब्राह्मणं न Agere: ॥ षि. ह; 2. 158, ` . $8. Kaiyayana ` “215 Bhrgu in all sabasas of the worst type the truth should be found out by means of divine proof ( ordeals &c. >) even though there may be witnesses.39® There is nothing in the Manusmrti corresponding with this. According to Bhrgu the ordeals of balance &c. are pres- cribed for those who are suspected to be in league with marauders\. and who have incurred popular censure, but in such cases there is no undertaking ( by the complainant to pay fine ).399 The Manu- smrti has not a word on this point. Household paraphernalia, beasts of burden, cattle, ornaments, slaves should be divided when discovered ; if they are (alleged to be ) concealed, the ordeal of koSa should be resorted to ; so says Bhrgu.4°° Another important circumstance deserves to be noted. Katyayana several times refers to the views of Manu. Katyayana says that the view of Manu was that in certain charges ( such as the commission of mahapatakas ) the ordeals for the accused were to be performed by good ला. +° According to Manu if a woman deserted her son, though he may be able ( to pay ), her stridhana should be seized and the paternal debt should be paid thereout.4°? Manu declared, says Katyayana, that if animals be killed, the offender should offer ( to the owner ) another similar animal or its proper price (note 345 above where Paragara also quotes it as Manu’s view). All these views attributed to Manu by Katyayana are not found in the extant Manusmrti. In certain places Katyayana refers to the views of the Manavas ; €. £. according to the Gargiyas and Manavas if a bribe had already been paid, the person receiving it should be made to repay it and should be fined eleven times as much ;4°3 according to 398 उत्तमेषु च सर्वेषु साहसेषु विचारयेत्‌ । स्रावं दिष्यवृष्ेन सत्सु सा्षिव वे भगः ॥ परा. मा ITI. 2. 90 999 लोकापवादषु्टानां शङ्कितानां च दस्युमिः। तुलादीनि नियोज्यानि न शिरस्तन्न वे मगः॥ ARG, FAT 400 गह्योपस्करवाल्याश्च दोद्याभरणकर्मिणः । दृश्यमाना विभज्यन्ते Sal गुडे्वीन्मनुः ॥ ATs ए. 723 and परा. az, IIL ए. 557 401 एषु aay दिष्यानि परतिषिद्धानि यत्नतः। कारयेन्सम्जनेस्तानि नामिशेस्तं त्यजेन्मनुः ॥ अपराकं 9. 696 who ascribes it to भृगु. The टोडरानन्द्‌ reads त्यजेः. 402 या स्वपुत्रं तु sree समथमपि GR । आहत्य Mea तत्र पिव्यर्णं दोधयेन्मनुः ॥ वि, र्‌, ४. 65. 403 अथ प्रागेव दत्ता स्यात्मापिदु्यस्तथा बलात्‌ । ges चेकादशगुणमाहुगोगीचभानवाः ॥ अपकृ 2. 782; विर्‌. 653 ( which reads अम्भीयमानवाः ). 416 | History of Dharmatistra the Manavas thieves caught red-handed with their booty should be at once banished.4°* As regards both these references, the teaching i the Manusmrti seems to be different ; vide Manu 9. 231 and 270 spectively. These facts about Katyayana’s references to Bhrgu and Manu raise several difficult questions, whether Bhrgu and Manu stand for two entirely different works or for the same work and ;whether he refers to some other version of the Manusmyrti ascribed to Bhrgu. In my opinion he is not referring to two separate works, and that he had before hima version of the Manu- smrti promulgated by Bhrgu but somewhat different from and probably larger than the present Manusmrti. In the nibandhas several verses are ascribed to Katyayana along with Manu, Yajiavalkya and Brhaspati. For example, the well- known verse about the sixfold division of stridhana ( adhyagnya- dhyavahanikam &c. ) is ascribed by the Dayabhaga to Manu and Katyayana. The half-verse “‘varnanamanulomyena dasyam na pratilomatah” is the same in both Yajiiavalkya (II. 183) and Katyayana. The Viramitrodaya ( p. 140 ) ascribes a verse to Brhaspati and Katyayana, in which the opinion of Brhaspati is cited. There is very close agreement between the definitions proposed by the two last writers of dharma, vyavahara, caritra, and rajaSasana. Besides Manu (or Manavas), Brhaspati and Bhrgu, Katyayana cites the views of several other writers on dharma. For Gargyas and Gautama vide notes 403 and 404 above. He says, according to Kausika, powerful robbers were to be guarded by chains of iron, were to be low-fed and were to undergo hard labour for the state till death ( Apararka p. 849 ). He quotes the view of Likhita that where a woman is deprived of food, raiment and dwelling (by her husband’s coparceners ) she would be entitled to demand her own ( stridhana ) and a share from the coparceners. In one case ( Apararka p. 755 ). a verse is cited as Katyayana’s in which Katyayana himself is named ( ParaSaramadhaviya III. p. 235 ). Katyayana contains the same advanced views about law and rules of procedure as are found in Narada and Brhaspati. He is even in a 404 मानवाः सय एवाहुः सहोढानां प्रवासनम्‌ । गोतमानामानिषटं यघ्माण्युष्छेदाद्धिगर्हितम्‌ ॥ वि. २. 382. It is not unlikely that the correct reading is प्रमापणं for yeaa, 28 the immediately following view of गौतमं suggests. The words of aq ०० सहोढं सोपकरणं षातयेद्विजारयमू. $8. Ratyayana 217 advance of these two writers in certain matters, such as definitions in general and the elaboration of rules about stridhana. He gives numerous definitions, such as those of vyavahara, pradvivaka, stobhaka, dharmadhikarana, tirita and anusista, simanta &c. He ५१ seems to have been the first to invent some new terms. For example, he defines paScatkara as a judgment given in favour of the plaintiff after a hot contest between the plaintiff and the defendant, while the term jayapatra is restricted by him to the judgment given on admission by the defendant or a judgment dismissing the suit on various grounds.‘°s He lays down a stringent rule that if a man abandons a ground of defence or attack and puts forward a less cogent one, he would not be allowed to put forward again the stronger ground after a decisive judgment of the court.‘ This resembles the 4th explanation to section 11 of the Indian Civil Procedure Code (1908) about res judicata. The verses about karsapana and dinara quoted above (note 368) from Narada (parisista verses 58-60) are ascribed to Katyayana by the Smpticandrika. The date of Katyayana can be settled only approximately. He is certainly much later than Manu and YaAjiiavalkya. As shown above he presupposes Narada and regarded Brhaspati as a very leading authority on vyavahara. Hence his upper limit is the 3rd or 4th century A. D. Visvariipa quotes eight verses as Katy4yana’s by name (vide on Yaj. II. 5, 6,47, 63, 281 ) on such topics of Vyavahara as the defects of the plaint, the contents of the plaint, the liability for the debts of a deceased person, payments of debts ot honour (satyamkara), punishment for abortion, grievous hurt and homicide of a Brahmana woman. Medhatithi (on Manu 4. 1) ascribes to Katyayana the rule that in case of conflict between the dictates of dharmasastra and arthasastra the king should prefer the former. Medhatithi on Manu (VIII. 216) speaks of Katyayana-satra, appears to quote a portion of it in prose and explains it.4°7 Medhatithi 405 निरस्तास्तु क्रिया यत्न भमाणेनेव वादिना । पर्यात्कारो ater न सर्वासु विधीयते ॥ अभ्यवाद्ादिषहीनेभ्य इतरेषां पदीयते । वृलानुवादसंतिदं Tey स्याव्णयपन्रकमू ॥ स्मृति ०, टोढरानन्द्‌, वीर्‌” 6 frat बलवर्तीं मुक्त्वा gdet योवलम्बते । स जयेवक्रते भ्ये; वनस्तां नाद्यात्‌ क्रियाम्‌ ॥ भिता० ० याज्ञ, 77. 80 } व्य. मा. ए. 281, वीर ° p. 108. 407 ‹ यो वान्यः कस्य जित्कर्मणि धनमाबध्य अधंतो निवतैतेति कात्थायनीये सुभ भममावभ्व आसज्य धनष्ययं कारयित्वा यदि sted निवर्तेत सोपि तदेदित्यनुषङ्गः 0’ H. D. 28. 218 History of Dharmatistra says that Katyayana extended the maxim of the trader carrying merchandise ( bhandavaha-vanik maxim ) to all similar transactions. All known quotations of Katyayana are in verse. When -Medhatithi speaks of a sutra and quotes a portion of it (as ‘‘va” and ‘‘iti” after “‘nivarteta” indicate ) in prose, we must either suppose that he is referring to some other work of Katyayana than the one in verse from which hundreds of verses are cited by other writers or that Katyayana’s work on vyavahara also contains some prose passages. As hardly any other writer quotes a prose passage of Katyayana on vyavahara, the second alternative appears somewhat unlikely. Visvaripa and Medhatithi regarded Katyayana as an authoritative smptikara along with Narada and Brhaspati. This position he could not have attained in less than a few hundred years. Therefore the lowest limit to which Katyayana can te assigned is the 6th century. Hence it may be said that Katyayana flourished between the 4th and 6th century A. D. The Vyavaharamatrka ( p. 307 ) quotes a Brhat-Katyayana on the question of proof. The Dayabhaga mentions a Vrddha-Katyi- yana. The Sarasvativilasa also quotes verses of Vrddha-Katyayana on rescission of purchase and other topics ( p. 320). In the present state of our knowledge it is very difficult to say whether these two are different works. The Caturvarga-cintamani ( vol. III, part 2, p. 657 ) speaks of Upakatyayana. Apararka quotes a verse from sloka-Katyayana which is not found in the Karmapradipa ( Jivananda’s ed. ), but appears to be a summary of a prose passage quoted as Katydyana’s immediately before by Apararka. In Jivananda’s collection of smrtis ( part 1, pp. 603-644 ) there is one of Katyayana in three prapathakas and 29 khandas and about five hundred verses. The same work is printed as Gobhilasmrti in the Anandagrama collection ( pp. 49-71 ). It contains also a few prose passages in the rath, 13th and 14th khandas. The pre- vailing metre is Anustubh, a few verses being in the Indravajra and other metres. The work is styled the Karmapradipa of Katya- yana. The opening verse justifies this name when it states that like a lamp the work will clearly show the mode of performing certain rites treated by Gobhila and other rites which are not clearly eluci- dated.t°® ~The contents of this work are briefly as follows :— how 408 अथातो गोमिलोक्तानामन्येषां चेव कमैणाम्‌ | अस्प शानां विधिं सम्यम्दर्शभिष्ये प्रदीपवत्‌ ॥ 88. Raiyayana 219 to wear the sacred thread; sipping water and touching varioys limbs with water; the worship of Ganesga and fourteen miatrs every rite; kuSas; Sraddha details; consecration of sacred aS . details about aranis, sruc, sruva; rules about cleansing the teeth and bathing; sarhdhya ; pranayama, muttering of Vedic mantras ; tarpana of gods and manes; the great daily yajnas ; who is to offer raddha ; rules about periods of impurity due to death; duties of wife ; §raddhas of various kinds. The Karmapradipa mentions by name several authors. It very frequently cites the views of Gobhila ( pp. 603, 626, 638 ) and Gautama ( pp. 619, 620, 626, 630, 636, 639 ). TheKarmapradipa as the opening verse says is intimately related to the Gobhila Grhya- siitra. It distinctly says that as Gobhila did not dilate upon the details as to time and procedure of goyajiia and vajiyajiia, Katyaiyana dilates upon them. This is borne out by the Gobhila grhya-satra.+% Another*?® passage of Katyayana about the Astakas is based upon the very words of the Gobhila grhya. Frequent reference is made to the views of Vasistha on the worship of Matrs ( p. 605 ), on Sraddha ( pp. 608, 629 ). Vide also p. 642 (28. 16). Among the other authors named are Nirada on the sticks for dantadhavana ९? 615 ), Bhargava ( probably Uganas ) on p. 640, Sandilya and Andilyayana on p. 626. Katyayana is named in several places ( pp. 624, 627, 638 ) and once the first person is used ( asin ८ mamapyetad hrdi sthitam ” p. 643). The Katyayanasmrti quotes the verse of Manu ( III. 70 ) on the five great yajiias. On p. 633 four verses forming the consolation to be offered to the relatives ofa person departed are the same as $}. (III. 8-11) and one verse in the same context occurs in the Mahabharata ( Santiparva 409 Vide p. 638 verses 1-11 of 26th khayda and compare with Gobhilagrhya- attra IIT. 6. 10-15 ( गोयज्ञे पायसश्वरः । ore यजेत पुथणमिन्ब्रमीम्बरम्‌ । ऋषमपुजा । गोयज्ञेनेवाश्वयक्षो ष्यःख्यातः | TATE देवतानामच्नाधिको | गन्धेरभ्यु- क्षण गवाम्‌ 1). | 410 यस्तु शाकादिको होमः कार्योपुषाष्टकावृतः | अन्वष्टक्यं मध्यमायामिति गोभिलगौतमा । वार्केखण्डिश्य सर्वासु कोत्सो मेनेषटकासुच ॥ कात्यायन ० 17. ४4 ( 7. 6९6) ; compare गोभिलगद्य 77. 10. 4-7 "चतुरको हेमन्तः ताः सर्वा; समांसाश्निर्कीरथदिति कोत्सः। ere इस्योद्राहमानिः । तथा गोतमवाकसण्डी । योधमामहायण्यास्तामिखराष्टमी तामपुपाष्केत्याबक्षते । ` r 2%0 History of Dharmaststra 27. 31 and other places 2.4" On p. 631 Katyayana speaks of Rama having performed yajfias taking as his spouse the golden image gf Sita. The question is:—what is the date of this Katyayanasmrti ( Karmapradipa ) and whether it is the work of Katyayana the great jurist. The Mit. (on ४३}. 1. 254 ) quotes a verse as Katya- yana’s which occurs in Jivananda’s text (p. 624 verse 20 ); similarly the Mit. quotes two verscs as Katyayana’s (on ४३}. III. 247 ) which have a place in the Karmapradipa ( Jivananda p. 634 verses 4-5 ). Scores of verses cited as Katyayana’s by Apararka ( on Acara and prayaécitta ) are found in the Karmapradipa. For example, vide Aparirka p. 43 (three verses ) and Karmapradipa ( p. 605, 1110-12), Apararka p. 51 (three verses about samidh ) and Karmapr. ( p. 613, 8. 17-19 ), Apararka p. 135 ( four verses about bathing in rivers ) and Karma. ( p. 615, 10. 5-7 and 14 ), Apararka 0. 532 (four verses on éraddha in which Katyayana himself is cited as an authority ) and Karma. ( p. 624, 16. 16-19 ), Apararka p. 872 ( six verses ) and Karma. ( 21. 2-7 p. 632 ), Apararka p. 1066 ( three verses about an agnibotrin being guilty of mahapataka ) and Karma. ( 23. 4-6 p. 634 ). The Smrticandrika also quotes profuse- ly from Katyayana on 1८014, Sraddha etc. and cites from the Karma~ pradipa by name passages which occur in Jivananda’s edition. The above references show that in the eyes of the Mitaksari and Apararka the Karmapradipa was an authoritative work. Therefore it follows that it must have been composed centuries before the 11th century A.D. It is however remarkable that several quotations ascribed to Katyayana in the Mitaksara, Aparirka and other works are not found in the Karmapradipa. For example, the Mitaksara ( on Y4j. प्रा. 242 ) cites Katyayana’s verse about five varieties of lapses in conduct viz. mahipataka, atipataka, pataka, prasangika, upapataka and on Yaj. II. 260 quotesa verse of Katyayana about what are atipatakas. These are not to be traced in the Karmapradipa printed by Jivananda. Similarly Apararka ( pp. 94-95 ) quotes three verses of Katyayana that are very interesting but are not found in 411 सवं क्षयान्ता Me: पतनान्ताः समुष्ठूय। । संयोगा विपयोगा्ता मरणान्तं ह जीवितम्‌ ४ 83, Kdatytyana 991 Jivananda’s edition.4*? Later works like the Nirnayasindhu, the Sathskaramayokha, the Madanap§arijata quote numerous verses of Katyayana on upanayana, marriage and other sarthskaras which we vainly seek to find in the Karmapradipa. Hence it follows that. there was some large work of Katyayana of which the Karmapradipa is either an abridgment or only a portion. The next question is whether Katyayana the jurist and the author of the Karmapradipa are identical. There are not sufficient data to identify the two. The only fact that points to the identity is that such eminent and early writers as Vijfiinesvara and Apararka appear to make no distinction tetween the two. Besides the Karmapradipa is also an early work. Against this it has to be re- membered that Visvardpa, probably the most ancient of all extant commentators, nowhere quotes Katya4yana on Acari and prayascitta. This absence of quotations is not a very cogent argument; still it raises a doubt in one’s mind whether a work of Katyayana on 20013 and other non-jural topics was known to Visvaripa. The other principal versified smrtis will now be described in ( Sanskrit ) alphabetical order. 39. Angiras From Visvarapa downwards Angiras is quoted very frequently on all topics except that of civil law ( vyavahara ). Angiras is one of the writers on dharma enumerated by Yaj. Visvaripay( on Y4j. I. 9 ) states that according to Angiras a parisad may comprise 121 Brahmanas. On १}. 1, 50 Visvaripa quotes a verse of Angiras that what is done according to one’s own will without following the dictates of SAstra is fruitless.443 On Yaj. III. 248 Visvaraipa says that the vrata called Vajra was prescribed by Angiras for Brahmanas guilty of deadly sins. Visvarapa (on Y4aj. III. 265 ) quotes two verses of Angiras on the prayascitta for killing the wife of a Brahmana who has kindled the sacred fires, for killing wives of 412 वरयित्वा तु यः कब्निलमणश्येलुकषो यद्‌ । रक्तागमाज्लीनतत्य कन्यान्ं दरयहूरम्‌ ॥ पदाय ग्डेष्डुरकं यः कन्यायाः Set तथा । धाया सा वषेमेकं तु देयान्यस्मे विधा- नतः ॥ GU त॒ या कन्या अन्वेनोढ यद्‌ भवेत्‌ । संस्हतापि प्रदेया ENTER पष प्रतिश्चुता ॥ . ५५३ स्वस्वामिभायकृतं कमे यतु धमविवजितम्‌ । करीड़ाकर्मेष बालानां तत्सवं निष्मयोजनम्‌ ॥ 222 History of Dharmatistra other Brahmanas and Ksatriyas and Vaisyas. On Yaj. Ill. 266 he quotes two verses of Angiras laying down prayascitta for killing certain beasts and birds, wherein Angiras himself is mentioned with honour ( bhagavan ). Apararka ( pp. 22-23 ) quotes thirteen verses /from Angiras on the constitution of parisad, wherein such terms as chaturvidya, vitarki, ahgavid, dharmapathaka are explained and the last of which says that a parisad sitting in judgment over those who are guilty of mahapatakas may consist of hundreds. The Mitaksara (on Yaj. I. 86 ) quotes several verses on the practice of sati and ascribes them to both Sankha and Angiras.4'¢ Aparirka (pp. 109, 712 ) quotes four other verses on the same practice, one of which is in the Indravajra metre and another prohibits a Brahmana wife from following that practice. Medhatithi (on Manu. V. 157) quotes the view of Angiras on sati and disapproves of it. The Mitaksara, Haradatta and others quote numerous verses of Angiras on asauca and prayascitta. Haradatta on Gautama (20. 1 ) quotes a verse of Angiras about the seven antyajas.t's Visvarapa( on Y4j. 1. 237) quotes a sitra of Sumantu in which Angirasa is cited as an authority The Suddhi-mayakha quotes a verse of Angiras which relies upon Satatapa.4© The Smrticandrika quotes Angiras on the enumeration of Upasmrtis (vide note 260 above). The Smrticandrika also contains a few prose quotations from Angiras ; the same work cites a verse of Angiras holding the dharmasastra of Manu as the supreme guide.4"7 The Angiras-smrti (in Jivananda part I, pp. 5§4-560) in 7 verses is probably an abridgment. It lays down prayaécittas for various occasions, such as taking food and drink from antyajas, for cruelly beating or causing various injuries to cows. It also lays down various rules for the wearing of the dark cloth ( nilivastra ) by women. It cites Angiras and Apastamba by name. The penultimate verse condemns those who rob women-of their wealth. en | — ES वि GE A 111 11 EE eR 1 1 ot क) 2 1, 1 * ene enn 414 One of them is the wellknown verse fag; sizqiqeiz] ष यानि SANA मानुषे । तावत्कालं वसेत्स्वगं Wale यानुगच्छति ॥ 415 चण्डालः श्वपचः कषत्ता सूतो वदेदिकस्तथा | मागधायोयव चव सपतेन्त्यावसायिनः ॥ 416 सर्वेषामेव वणोनां सूतके मतके तथा । द॒कषाहाच्छद्धिरतेषामि ति शातातपोभ्रवीत्‌ ॥ 417 यदूर्वे मनुना भाक्तं धर्मा्ञमनुत्तमम्‌ । नीहि नत्समतिक्रम्य वचनं हिलमात्मनः ॥ स्मृति” ( RUE ) 89. Argiras There are several mss. in the Deccan College Collection whihe contain a varying number of verses on prayaécitta agreeing more ¢s less with Jivananda’s text. For example, No 53 of 1879-8 contains about one hundred verses, No. 205 of 1882-83 contains 54 verses, while No. 65 of Visrambag collection and No. 83 of 1895- 1902 contain only 32 ; No. 81 of 1884-86 is styled Brhad-Angiras and contains 151 verses, many of which are identical with those in the Calcutta text. | The Mitaksara (on ४३). वा. 277) and the Smrtiratnavali of Vedacarya (1. O. cat. No. 1552 p. 475 ) quote a Brhad-Angiras and the Mitaksara also quotes a Madhyama-Angiras several times (on Yaj. III. 243, 241, 258, and 260 ). 40. Rsyasrnga This is a writer who is frequently quoted on acara, agauca, sraddha, and priyascitta by the Mit., Apararka, Smrticandrika and other works. Apararka ( p. 724 ) quotes as Rsyasrnga’s a verse ascribed to Sankha in the Mitaksara (on ५३}. IT. 119) and other works, which states that when one coparcener recovers with his own efforts family property that was lost to the family, he gets a fourth share of it and the others become sharers :in the rest.4*® The Smrticandrika (I. p- 32 ) quotes ‘ api vasasa vajnopavitarthan kuryat tadabhave पारप sutrena’, which is in prose. 4. Karsnajini This writer is quoted by the Mit. ( ४२}. III. 265 three verses ), Apararka, Smrticandrika and other works mostly on ésraddha. Apararka ( p. 138) quotes a verse from him which enumerates the seven sons of Brahma, Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanitana, Kapila, Asuri, Vodha (?) and Pajicasikha. Apararka ( p. 424 ) quotes a verse which refers to the two signs of the Zodiac, Kanya, and Vrscika. ० 0 42. Carurvimsatimata ‘There are two Mss. of this work in the Deccan College Collection (No 244 of A. 1881-1882 and 111 of 1895-1902). It contains §25 verses. The work is so called because it embodies the essence of the teachings of 24 sages, Manu, Yajiiavalkya, Atri, Visnu, eee ie eget oe 418 caret तु यो मृमिमेकभ्यवुदधरेत्‌ कमात्‌ । Tait तु लमन्तेन्ये ger तु तुरीयकम्‌ ॥ History of Dharmataistra oth/asistha, Vyasa, 15425, Apastamba, Vatsa, प्रद, Guru qu¢) quotes two verses of Pulastya who enumerates eleven intoxicating drinks together with sura as the twelfth.37_ Apararka quotes several verses from Pulastya on sarhdhya, Sraddha, ASauca, duties of yatis, prayagcitta. Apararka quotes two verses from Pulastya propounding the view that a com- bination of jfiana and karma is the correct view.43® The first of these verses is ascribed by him to Yoga-Yajnavalkya elsewhere ( note 336 ). The Smrticandrika quotes about forty verses from Pulastya on ahnika and Sraddha. In one place it quotes Pulastya on the efhicacy of bathing on Sunday, Tuesday, and Saturday.+39 In another place it refers to the japa of Rama, Paragurama, Nrsirhha, Trivikrama. The Danaratnakara of Candegvara cites a prose text from Pulastya on the gift of deer-skin,4#° The Pulastya-smrti must have been composed between 4th and 7th century A. D. 435 स्नातकस्य TATA पच्वापानेभिदयत्निणः । स्वनिवं गहस्थेष शोचकल्पान्नियोजयेत्‌ ॥ faoqaq ०० या. I. 1%. 436 मुन्यन्नं agoredie: मासं क्षत्नियवेश्ययोः । मधुप्रदानं शूद्स्य सर्वेषां चाविरोधि यत्‌ ॥ 437 पानसं द्राक्षमधुकं Me तालमेक्षवम्‌ | मधूत्थं Tene भरेयं नरिकेलजम्‌ ॥ समानानि विजानीयन्मयान्यकादशेव तु । द्वादशं तु सुरामदयं सर्वेषामधमं स्मम्‌ ॥ 438 ज्ञानकर्मसमायोगात्यरं प्राञ्नोति परुषः । एृथग्भावान्न Rene उमे तस्मत्समाशरेयत्‌ ॥ ज्ञानं प्रधानं न तु Sat कम पधानं न तु बुद्िहीनम्‌ । तस्मादुभाभ्यां त मवेत्पसिद्िने ्यकपक्षो विहगः प्रयति ॥ पराकं ० या. 77. 57, p. 911. 489 रण्यज्कारशनेर्वारेः स्नानं कु्वेन्ति ये नराः । व्याधिमिस्ते न पीड्यन्ते ay: केसरिणो यथा ॥ स्मरति ०. 0 अथातः रष्णाजिनविधिं ष्याख्यस्यामः। कार्तिक्यां पौणमास्यां बेशाख्य च बन्द सूयमरहे विषुवयोवां रष्णाजिनं ससरं सशक्रमन्रणं मनोहरम्‌ | MS. No. 114 of 1884-86 from 2096687 College (folio 51a ), 46. Pracetas 999 46. Pracetas Pracetas finds a place among the sages enumerated by Paraéara though not in Yajniavalkya. In both Mit. and Apararka there are passages in prose and verse ascribed to Pracetas on daily duties, graddha, 4sauca, prayascitta. The Mit. ( on ४३}. III. 27 ) quotes a verse from Pracetas saying that workmen, artisans, physicians, male and female slaves, kings, royal officers have not to observe periods of impurity+4' ( on death ), This verse is cited as a smrti by Medhatithi on Manu V. 60 without ascribing it to Pracetas. So Medhatithi looked upon Pracetas as equally authoritative with Manu, Visnu and others. The Mit. (on Yaj. III 20, 263-64), Haradatta (on Gautama 22. 18) and Apararka frequently cite verses from Brhat-Pracetas on agauca and prayascitta. The Mit. and Aparirka also quote verses on the same topics from Vrddha-Pracetas. A few prose quotations from Pracetas are noted in the Smrti- candrika and by Haradatta (on Gautama 23.1 ). 47. Prajapati Prajapati is cited as an authority by the Baudhayanadharmasitra (1. 4. 15 and II. 10. 71 ). Vasistha several times quotes Prajapatya Slokas ( viz. III. 47, XIV 16-19, 24-27, 30-32). It has been shown above that most of these verses are found in the Manusmrti or have close corréspondence with verses of Manu. So it is not unlikely that both the writers of dharmasitras mean Manu by Prajapati. In the Anandagrama collection ( p. 90-98 ) there is a smrti of Prajapati in 198 verses on the various details of sraddha, such as the time, place, the persons authorised to perform, proper food, Brahmanas to be invited etc. The prevailing metre is Anustubh, but there are nine verses in the Indravajra, Upajati, Vasantatilaka ( verse 137 ) and Sragdhara ( verse 96 ). It speaks of Kalpagastra, smytis, dharmagastra, puranas. It contains a verse referring to the Kapya and VrScika ( scorpion ) signs of the zodiac, which is almost the same as a verse of Karsnajini. “1 कारवः शिल्पिनो वेया दासीदासा तथव च । राजानो राजमृत्याश्च aE AT: प्रकीर्तिताः ॥ 980 History of Dharmafasira The Mit. ( on Yaj. III. 25 and 260 ) quotes verses of Prajapati on aSauca and prayascitta. Apararka cites verses of Prajapati on purifi- cation of various substances, sraddha, witnesses, ordeals and ३5४८४. None of these is traced to the printed text of Prajapati. Apararka ( p. 952 ) gives a long prose text of Prajipation the four orders of parivrajakas, viz. kuticaka, bahidaka, harhsa, paramaharhsa. Apararka ( p. 542 ) cites a verse of Laugiksi which refers to the view of Prajapati that the son of a putrika was to offer pindas to his mother by the gotra of his maternal grand-father.442, Apararka, Smticandrika, Paragara-Madhaviya and other works quote several verses of Prajapati on vyavahara. Witnesses are of two kinds, krta and aksta. In this he seems to have followed Narada ( rnadana, verse 149 ). Prajapati lays down the characteristics of valid reply ( uttara ) of the defendant and 00065444 the four varieties of uttara. The Parigara-Madhaviya cites several verses of Prajapati on ordeals. Prajapati recognised the right of the sonless widow to succeed to her husband’s wealth++5 and enjoined on her the duty of offering Sraddha every month and year to her husband’s manes and to honour his relatives. 446 48. Marici This sage 15 relied upon as anauthority by the Mit., Apararka, Smrti- candrika on Ahnika, Asauca, Sraddha, Prayascitta and Vyavahara. Apararka quotes several verses on tarpana one of which speaks of Sun- day.447 Marici disallows bathing in the rivers in the months of Sravana 44४ मातामहस्य गोत्रेण मातुः पिण्डोद्कक्रियाम्‌ । कुर्वीत TET एवमाह प्रजापतिः॥ पराके. 443 साक्षी द्विभेदो Aka: रुत एकोऽपरोऽकृतः | रेख्यारूढः GA हेयः मुक्तकोऽरूत उच्यते ॥ TIT 7. 666, स्मृतिच ° (ब्य. ?. 80 reads उत्तरोऽङ्त ). 448 स्मतिच ° ( sq, P. 42-43 ), परा. मा, vol. JIL. p. 69-78. 445 पूर्व प्रमीत िहोत्रं मरते भर्तरि तद्धनम्‌ । लभेत्‌ पतिता नारी धमं एष सनातनः ॥ 446 जङ्गमं सथावरं टेम SY धान्यरसाम्यरम्‌ | आदाय दापयेष्छादटं मासरसंवत्सरादिकम्‌ ॥ पितृष्यगुरंदोहित्रान्‌ भतेस्वस्रीयमातृलान्‌ । पुजयेत्कल्यपूर्ताम्यां वृद्वानाथातिथीस्तथा ॥ स्मतिचं 0 ( p. 291 ); Tt. Fl. vol, III. p. 536. 447 सन्या रविवारे च गही जन्मदिने तथा । मस्थपुश्रकलशरार्थी न कु्ांिलतर्पणम्‌ ॥ BAS Dp. 192; स्मृतिच* ( आद्धिक 0. 125 ), 48. Marte 391 and Bhadrapada.44® 206 made a very near approach to the modern conceptions underlying the Transfer of Property Act. ‘Completeness is not attained without writing in the transactions of sale, mortgage, partition and gift of immoveable property’.49 If a buyer purchases a chattel before a row of merchants and to the knowledge of the king’s officers and in broad daylight, he is free from blame and gets back his money ( if the thingturns out to be another’s property ), while if the price (paid by a buyer for a chattel) cannot be recovered ( from the vendor who sells without title ) owing to the vendor's address being not known, the loss should be apportioned between the buyer and the original owner of the chattel.45° Marici divides adhi into four varieties, bhogya, gopya, pratyaya, 21720111. It is to be noted that Apararka( p. 908 ) quotes a prose passage of Marici on asauca. 49. Yama The Vasistha-dharmasttra (18. 13-15 and 19. 48 ) cites four $lokas of Yama and quotes (11. 20) one verse in which Yama is spoken of as an.authority. All the slokas except one are found in Manu.‘5! Vasistha quotes a Sloka of Prajapati wherein Yama’s view 448 नमोनमस्मयोेष्ये सवी नयो रजस्वलाः । तासु स्नानं न कुर्वीत देवर्विपित॒तपेणम्‌ ४ ATU ए" 235 449 स्थावरे विक्रयधमने पिभागे दान एव च । प्रनिम्रहे च at च arewa सिभ्यति Feat ॥ पर्‌. मा. VOI. पा. p. 128 ; स्मतिच ° ( sq, ?" 60 reads किसिनेनप्रुयात्‌ सिद्धिमविसंवादूमेव च ) 450 अविज्ञातनिवेशत्वायन्न मूल्यं न म्यते | हानिस्तन्न समा कत्थ्या केत नाशिकियेोदंयोः ॥ पराकं 2. 775 451 अथापि यमगीतानृश्छोकानुद्‌हरन्ति । श्मशानमेतलयस्यक् ये gras पापचारिणः । तस्मा- SPARTAN तु नाभ्येत्तव्यं कदाचन ॥ न शूद्राय मतिं द्यान्नोच्छिष्ट न हविष्कृतम्‌ | न चास्वोपदिशेदर्म न चास्य वतमादिशेत्‌ ॥ यश्चास्योपदिशेदमं यश्चास्य ब्रतमार्देशेत्‌ | सोसंवृ्तं तमो धोरं सह तेन पदयते ॥ वसिष्ठ 13. 13-15. The last two are almost thesame as wa IV. 80-81 and the first isa paraphrase of anq, श्रो Tq इ वा एतद्ुशानं Tega: । तस्माष्टद्रसनीपे नाण्येतच्यम्‌". नाधद्‌ोषोस्ति ust वे व्रतिनां न च ARO | रेन्द्रस्थानमुपासीना AeA हि ते सद्‌ा ॥ वसिष्ठ 19. 48 and मनु ए. 93. “अथाप्युदाहरन्ति | अथ चेन्मघ्रविदयुक्तः शारीरः TTT: । दुष्यं तं यमः ME पड्किपावन एव सः ॥ व.सेष्ठ॥ 11. 20; vide बृहद्यम 5. 41. धुते षा यि वा तें विपो नायानश्लभ्युतम्‌ । यमस्तदश्जि प्राह तुल्यं गोमांसभक्षणेः ॥ वसिष्ठ. 14. 30 232 History of Dharmatistra is set forth. Yama is one of the sages enumerated in the list of Yajiiavalkya. Govindaraja (on Manu 5.16) and Apararka quote averse of Sankha wherein Yamas’ view that the flesh of certain birds could be eaten is referred to.45? Apararka (7, 1231 ) also cites a verse of Sankha in which the view of Bhagavan Yama that one should save one’s life in all ways (even by incurring sin ) is relied upon. In Jivananda’s collection ( part I. pp. 560-568 ) there is a ऽत of Yama in seventyeight verses on prayascitta and purification ($uddhi ). In this smrti Yama himself is cited in the third person (verse 65 ). One verse ( 33 ) refers to the view of Bhasvati (son of the sun, by which may be meant either Manu or Yama himself ).453 Some of the verses are identical with those of Manu (e. g. verses 26, 28 are the same as Manu 11.178 and 3.19). Verse 44 1 in the Upajati metre. In the Anandasrama collection there is a Yamasmrti in 99 verses on prayaégcitta, Sraddha, and purification. Most of the topics of this smrti are the same as those of the Calcutta text, but most of the verses are not identical. A few verses are found in both, €. g. the verses about the seven lowes! ०5165441 (antyajas ). Verse 11 quotes the view of Satitapa. This smrti contains the well-known text that a woman passes on marriage into the gotra of her husband, which is cited by the Mit. (on Yaj. I. 254 ).55 In the same collection there is a smrti of Brhad-Yama ( pp. 99-107 ). It is divided into five chapters and contains 182 verses. It deals with prayaécittas for various lapses, purification from various kinds of contacts (Suddhi), Sraddha, partition and a few matters of medical procedure. In this smrti Yama is frequently cited by name. Satatapa is cited on partition (V. 20). Many of the verses of this text are identical with those of Yama in Jivananda’s text. For example, Jivananda (0. 561 ) verses 15-17 are the same व क 1 १ = 1 A rey eee ee 452 HA च मथूर च लावकं च कपिखलम्‌ । वाधीणसं ade च म्ष्यानाह यमः सताम्‌ ॥ ( सदा ».।. ) अपराकं ए. 1167 463 ततो देवलकन्ेव भृतको वेदविक्रयी । एते व्याः प्रयत्नेन रएतद्गास्वतिरबवीत्‌ ॥ Compare मनु 3, 180. 454 रजकश्वमेकारुय नटो बुरेढ एव ख । केवतैमेदमिङ्ठाश्च RA अन्त्यजाः स्मृताः ॥ Jivananda verse 64, Anand&érama verse 83. 465 शवगोच्रादूभश्यते मारी Magee पदे । स्वामिगोग्रेण कर्तव्यास्तस्याः पिण्डोदुक- fear: ॥ Verse 78, 49. Yama 298 as Brihad-Yama III. 1-3, Jivananda p. 563 verses'29-33 are the same as Brhad-Yama III. 34-38, Jivananda verses 35-36 are the same as Brhad-Yama III. 16-17. The verse in the Upajati metre ( Jivananda 44 ) is Brhad-Yama IIT. 61. Two of the verses at the end of chap. V. are the same as Y4j. II. 17 and 23. The numerous mss. of Yama contain either one or other of the above three texts or different texts bearing on the same topics. For example, Deccan College collection Nos. 209-211 of A 1881-82 and No. 153 of 1895-1902 are the same as the Yamasmrti in the Anandaégrama collection, No. 401 of 1891-95 seems to be the same 25 Brhad-Yama in the Anandaésrama collection. But the I. O. Cat. No. 1334 p. 390 contains 57 Slokas, the last 20 of which are in the Indravajra metre. Visvaripa, Vijnanesvara, Aparirka, the Smpticandrika and other later works quote over three hundred verses of Yama on all topics of dharmaSastra including vyavahara. This establishes that they had an extensive work of Yama before them from which it is probable various abridgments corresponding with the printed works were made. ViSvariipa quotes about ten verses of Yama on water as purifier (on Yaj. I. 187), on Sriddha Con Yaj. I. 225 and 252) and on prayascitta for killing a cow (on ४६}. III. 262). The identi- cal verses are not found in the printed texts. Some of the verses quoted from Yama in Apararka and the Smrticandrika can be traced in the printed text. For example, Apararka ( p. 42 ) quotes a verse of Yama in which Yama himself is referred to as an authority.456 It occurs in Jivananda’s text (verse 65 ). The two verses in Jivananda’s text (verses 26, 28) that are identical with Manu are cited in the Smrticandrika as ४9725, Two verses of Brhad-Yama (III. 20-21 ) about the proper age of marriage in the case of girls are quoted as Yama’s in the Smpticandrika.457 In some of the verses quoted by Apararka from Yama, the opinions of . Manu are cited which can be identified with the views of the Manu- 456 अपः STE: य आचामति वे द्विजः । सुरां पिबति स as यम्य दनं यथा ॥ This is attributed to यम in the स्मतिचं० also. 457 अष्टवषौ भवेद्रोरी नववर्षा च Tels aman} भवेत्कन्या अत ऊध्वं रजस्वला ॥ माष greet ae कृम्यां यो न प्रयश्छति । मास्ति माकि रजस्तस्याः पिता पिबति शोणितम्‌ ॥ स्मृतिब ° ( stare ४.79. ). . H. ०, 30. 234 History of Dharmasasira smyti. For example, according to Yama food polluted by the touch of hair, moths and insects, or seen by sinners and women in their courses is purified by water, holy ashes etc.+5* This refers to Manu ४. 125. Similarly the Smrticandrika quotes a verse of Yama-which says that according to Manu those who administer poison, who are incendiaries and robbers and those guilty of homicide and abetment thereof should pay the extreme penalty of death.459 Apararka (pe 988 on Yaj. III. 109 ) quotes five verses of Yama which refer to the 26th ¢attvas well known in the Sankhya system, regard Purusottama as a 26 tattva and propound that he who correctly understands the 25 tativas, in whatever aSrama he may be, reaches the highest abode of Visnu. Apararka quotes a few prose passages from Yama on the garments to be worn by brahmacarins,*® on prayascitta for killing various kinds of birds and insects, for cutting trees and bushes, for drinking wine, for stealing gold and for the other deadly sins etc.4° The Mahabharata (AnuSsasana 104. 72-74) quotes gathas of Yama. The Smrticandrika quotes a verse of Yama which speaks of the sun being in the zodiacal sign Virgo.4% Yama required the king to look into the disputes of litigants carefully and impartially.463 Yama cites the authority of Manu for the proposition that everything brought about by coercion such as a gift or a deed was liable to be set aside. This is almost identical with Manu 8. 168. Yama lays down that a Brahmana was never to be awarded corporal punishment, but that a Brahmana guilty of 458 अवक्षुतं केशपतङ्गकीरैरुद्क्यया वा पतितश्च Te | अलातमस्माम्बुहिरण्यभागेः संस्पष्टमन्नं मनुराह भोज्यम्‌ ॥ अपराकं ?. 267. 459 विषाभिदायकाश्चोरा घातकश्वोपघातकाः । स्वशरीरेण दण्ड्याः स्युभनुराह प्रजापतिः ॥ स्मतिच° ; vide मन, 9. 278. 460 सर्वेषां रोरवशाणक्षोमाविकानि सामथ्यद्धोवञ्चाणतिराणि न 1 अपरा P- 58, 461 Vide pp. 1130, 1135, 1218, 1292. 463 हंसे Te कन्यास्थे &o. स्म्रतिष्च° ( श्रा. P- 366 Gharpure.), 463 राजा मन्तिसहायस्तु हयोर्षिवद्मानयोः | सम्यक्कार्याण्यवेन्षित रागदरेषविवा्ितः ॥ ITS p. 596, ५6५ marge Megs TTT Saag । सर्वान्‌ यलकृतानरथा्‌ नि्त्थोनाह 4 ममुः ॥ समृतिच० ( व्य, P. 180), 49, Yama 238 crimes was to be imprisoned and made‘*s to work. Yama, like एद], (II. 145 ), prescribed that the stridhana of a woman married in the Asura form went to her father,‘ if she died childless. Apararka (p. 822 ) quotes two verses of Yama that prescribed the first ammerce- ment for him who, though forbidden, wrongfully takes the water of a lake or disturbs a water-course and the highest ammercement for him who breaks a lake. Aparirka ( 0. 860) also cites Yama for the fine of five krsnalas in the case of adultery with another’s wife of the same caste as that of the paramour and twelve panas in case the wife is of a lower caste. The Smrticandrika and the Vyavahara- mayiakha on the other hand direct that the king should punish the Brahmana woman guilty of adultery with a Sadra by throwing her to dogs and by forcible tonsure and riding on an ass in case of adul- tery with a Ksatriya or Vaisya. The Smrticandrikara, Parasara- Madhaviya and Vyavaharamaytkha quote a verse of Yama about a debtor, who, being able to pay, does not wantonly pay, being punished by taking twice the amount. Yama remarks that the order of sarhny4sa is not allowed to women in the Vedas or in the Sastra*®7 ( dharmaégastra ) and that her real dharma is to be the mother of children from one of herown caste. A Brhad-Yama is cited by the Mit. ( on Y4j. III. 255 and 290 ), Haradatta and by Apararka on prayascitta. Similarly a Laghu-Yama is cited by Haradatta and Apararka and a Svalpa-Yama ( probably same as Laghu-Yama ) by the Smrtiratnakara of Vedacarya. 50. Laugaksi The Mit. (on Y4j III. 1-2,260, 289) quotes verses of Laugakst on 4gauca and prayascitta. Apararka quotes prose passages and verses of Laugaksi on the sarhskaras, vaigvadeva, caturmisya, purification 465 न शारि aregered दण्डो मवति कर्हिचित्‌ । गुप त॒ Va यदध्वा राजा भक्तं प्रदा- TU... यथापराधं विप्रं तु विकमीण्यपि कारयेत्‌ । अवध्या ब्राह्मणा गावो लोकेस्मिन्‌ वेदिकी श्रतिः ॥ स्मतिच० ( घ्य, ४. 316). 46 आसुरादिषु यद्‌ द्रन्यं fey प्रदीयते i अधजायामतीतायां पितैव तु धनं हरेत्‌ ॥ स्मृतिच ० ( ष्य. ?. 286. ). Note अप्रजासामतीतायां, which is the reading in feeraq ( p. 172 above ). 8 fare: gat वा शाखे व। sa न विधीयते । मजाः हि तस्याः स्वो धः सवणो- दिति QT ॥ स्मृतिच° (व्य. 254 ) 236 History of Dharmasastra of substances, Sraddha, agauca and prayascitta. Apararka cites ( p.512 ) a verse of Laugaksi which regards Prajapati as an authority. The Mit. and almost all works on vyavahara cite a verse of Laugaksi defining yoga and ksema and prescribing that they are impartible. i Sag 51. Visvamitra Visvamitra is one of the writers on dharma enumerated by Vrddha-Yajfiavalkya as quoted by Visvaripa. Apararka, the Smrti- candrika, the Kalaviveka of Jimatavahanaand other works quote verses of Vigvamitra on almost all topics of dharma except vyavahara, such as on the five deadly sins, on Sraddhas, prayascitta etc. ViSvamitra defines dharma as that which is esteemed by. Aryas (respectable people ) who know the Vcdas.4* His verses on the mahapatakas are frequently quoted.449 The Madras ( Govt. ) Mss. cat. ( p. 1985 No. 2717 ) notices a smrti of Visvamitra in verse in nine chapters. 52. Vyasa In Jivananda ( part II pp. 321-342) and in the Anandagrama collection of smytis there isa smrti ascribed to Vyasa. The two texts are the same with a few variations. It is in four chapters and contains about 250 verses. Vyasa is said to have declared the smpti in Benares. The contents briefly are :— the dharmas herein laid down prevail only in that region where the black deer roam about ; the authoritativeness of पाः, smgti and purinas; mixed castes; sixteen samskaras ; duties of Bralhmacari; marriage ; Brahmana may tharry Ksatriya or Vaisya girl but not Sadra; duties of a wife; the nitya, naimittika and kamya acts of householders, eulogy of the house- holder stage and of gifts. पर्वा प) quotes a few verses of Vyasa. They are mostly taken from the Mahabharata and are concerned with topics of marriage, daily duties ( such as washing the teeth and bathing ), éraddha and priyascitta. Similarly Mcdhatithi quotes several verses from the 468 यमायौः क्रियमाणं तु शसन्त्यागमवेदिनः । स धर्मो य॑ विग्न्त तमधर्म cae ॥ स्मतिच° ( अद्धिक ?" °). 469 ब्राह्मणो न च हन्तव्यः सुरा पेया न च ARS | ब्राह्मणस्वर्णहरणं न कतेष्यं कदाचन It गुरुपत्नीं न गच्छेच्च संसग नेश्च नाचरेत्‌ । महापातकिसंज्ञा तु निर्विषा मनीविमिः॥ SIS p. 1044. 68. Vyasa 287 Mahabharata 25 Vyasa’s. In Apararka, the Smrticandrika and other works about two hundred verses of Vyasa are cited on vyavahara. From these it appears that Vyasa dealt with rules of procedure and the several titles of law ( vyavahara-padas ) and ‘that his doctrines closely agreed in most respects with those of Narada, Katyayana and Brhaspati. He gives rules on the four kinds of uttara ( mithya, sarhpratipatti, karana and pran-nyaya ), divides documents in three varieties ( svahasta, 13027442, rajasasana ), divides laukika documents into eight sub-varieties ( just as Katyayana seems to have done ); he closely follows Brhaspati in his requirements about royal grants and two of his verses about grants (sastirh varsa &c. and sama- nyoyarh dharmasetur nrpinam) occur very frequently in inscriptions (vide Apararka on Yaj. I. 318 ). Vyasa lays down that if a stranger enjoy a person’s land for twenty years when the king is there (i.e. when there is no revolution or anarchy ) and when the owner is able (to resist) the latter loses his property.47° He speaks of adverse possession as having five characteristics.47! He mentions seven kinds of sureties, while Harita and Katyayana speak of only five and Brhaspati of four. He speaks of only five kinds of ordeals. He defines a niska as equal to 14 suvarnas, a suvarna being equal to cight palas.172, Vyasa seems to represent a middle stage in the evolution of the rights of the widow to succeed to her deceased husband. He says that a woman was to get a maximum of two thousand ( karsipanas ) from the estate of her deceased husband+73 ( besides what he gave her when living ). Vy4sa gave to the father and sons equal shares in ancestral property and allowed partition even against the wislt of the father.47! From these important charac- 410 वर्षाणि विंशतियैस्य भ॒भक्ताथ पररिह | सति रक्षि सषमथस्य तस्यं Be न Hes ॥ AIG २. 68 41 सागमो दीधकालश्च केदोपाधिविवजितः । प्रत्यर्थिसंनिधानश्च पश्च। क्रो भोग उच्यते ॥ AAs 7. 635. 412 पलान्यष्टौ सुवणैस्य सृवणीश्च चतुर्दश । एतन्निष्कपमाणं तु व्यासेन परिकीर्तितम्‌ ॥ lays, 4:3 द्विसाहस्रः परो दायः सिये देधो धनस्य च । यञ्च A धनं दत्तं सा यथाकाममाष्ु- यात्‌ ॥ अपराक 7. 752. 4 क्रमागते गृहे क्षेत्रे Ragen: समांशिनः । पेतृकेण विमागाह्ैः ger: पितुरनिच्छतः ॥ अपराकु 7. 728. 288 History of Dharmatistra teristics of Vyasa it may safely be concluded that Vyasa flourished about the same time as Yajiiavalkya and Brhaspati, i. €. between the second and the fifth century. In Apararka and other works there are numerous verses attribut- ed to Vyasa which are certainly not taken from the Mahabharata or from the Vyasasmrti in the Anandasrama collection (pp. 357-371). For example, on Y4j. I. 12 he cites a verse of Vyasa in the Vasantatilaka metre about the auspicious asterism for cauJa and another verse laying down Saturday, Sunday and Friday as unsuitable for caula. Similar- ly Vy4sa’s verses dealing with the merit of bathing on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday in conjunction with certain tithis are cited by Apararka ( p. 213). Vyasa speaks of Sraddhas when the Sun is in the sign of Virgo( Apararka p. 424 ). These indications are sufficient to assign Vyasa to a comparatively later date. But as Apararka evidently makes no distinction between Vyasa the jurist, Vyasa the reputed compiler of the Mahabharata ( ९, £. he quotes on p. 961 six verses of the Bhagavatgita as Vy4sa’s) and Vy4sa who wrote on the sarhskaras, sraddha and other topiee, it appears that the jurist and the writer on other topics of dharma were separated from him by several centuries. Whether the jurist and the writer on other topics of dharma are identical is a difficult pro- एला. All that can be said is that the two may probably be identical. The Smrticandrika quotes a Gadya-Vyasa and about 450 verses of Vyasa on ahnika, vyavahara and priyascitta. Apararka quotes a verse of Vrddha-Vyasa on Saudayika, a kind of stridhana. The Mit., the Prayagcittaemayakha and other works cite verses of a Brhad-Vyasa. _Ballalasena in his {21452478 quotes Maha-Vy4sa and Laghu-Vyisa as authorities and also Dana-Vyasa, which probably means the dana-dharma portions of the Mahabharata. 53. Sat-trimsan-mata This appears to have been a work like the CaturvirhSatimata described above. Quotations from it are cited in the Kalpataru, the Mitaksara, the Smrticandrika, Apararka, Haradatta and a host of writers and works. Mitramigra475 says that though the Sat-trimnsan- हि 1 Lo I । 45 पू्रान्मतादिकं तु कंश्िदेव परिगृीतववाद्विगीततवादुपरमाणमित्ुक्तम्‌ | कस्पतर्गा विह्नानिन्वरापरकिशूलपणिममृतिभिस्तु प्रमाणत्वेन परिगृहतिम्‌ । परिभावापक़ाश ?. ` ` ना = = क जानक यिप = ण Rg A TRE ES १ Oe Ate RNR ज मि =निः 68. Sat-trithéan-mata 239 mata has been accepted as an authority by the above-mentioned writers, yet certain other writers did not hold the work authoritative. The fact that Vigvarapa and Medhatithi do not mention this work, taken along with the above statement of Mitramisra, may be relied upon for holding that this compilation must have been among the latest products of the age of smrtis and was probably compiled some time between 700-900 A. D. Almost all the quotations from this compilatiou are concerned with the topics of purification of sub- stances (Suddhi), 54404 and ptayascittas for sins and pollutions of various sorts. No verse of this compilation dealing with vyavahara could he discovered. One verse quoted from it prescribes a bath on touching Bauddhas, Pasupatas, Jainas, atheists and followers of Kapila.476 Another verse quoted by Aparirka cites the view of Brhaspati.‘77_ In another verse the view of Vaivasvata is referred 10.178 Apararka quotes a prose passage from this compilation prescribing the prayascittas for touching the corpse of a candala etc. As no ms. was available, it is dificult to say what 36 sages are relied upon as authorities. 54. Samgraha or Smrtisamgraha This work is frequently cited by the Mitaksara, Apararka, the SmrticandrikA and other works on all topics of dharma. The quotations on vyavahara are copious and are very important for the history of Hindu Law. A few of the important views of the Sarngraha- kara are set out below. He gives the requisite characteristics of a plaint in five verses.479 According to him dacuments are of two kinds, rijakiya and jinapada. The ordeals from dhata (balance ) to poison (i. ५. four) are prescribed in cases where the subject matter is of great value ( 1. €. above 500 panas ), while koSa and the (other) ^ योदधान्‌ पशुपत।ञ्जेनान्‌ लोकायतिककापिलान्‌ । विकमेस्थान्‌ द्विजान्‌ स्पष्टा सचलो जलमाविशेत्‌ ॥ स्मतिच ० 1. p. 118, अपराकं ए. 923 omits जेनात्‌ and reads लोका- यतिकनास्तिकान्‌,. “7 तिलहोमायुते चेव पराकट्ूयमेव च । गयत्या लक्षमेकं च समान्या gees अपराकं ए. 1249 8 समुच्छिषटस्तु यो ak aR वा मक्तभोजनः। एवै वैवस्वतः प्राह THT सान्तपनं चरेत्‌ ॥ अपराक ए. 1174 “9 Vide मिता० on arg, 1.6, स्फतिच० ( ष्य. ?. 36 ), व्यवहारमयुसं (9.1४), dite ( p. 68) 4 440 History of Dharmatistra ordeals (in all three ) are prescribed in disputes for lesser’ sums.+* This is slightly opposed to Narada ( rpadana verse 336) according to whom the five ordeals from tula to 1668 were prescribed in substantial disputes.48* The Sarhgrahakara has in view the seven ordeals spoken of by Narada ( rnadana verses 252, 337, 343 ), while Brhaspati and Pitimaha enumerate nine. He defines daya as the wealth that is handed down through father and mother.4®? He held that ownership arose from the dictates of sastra and was not an affair of the world (Jaukika) and puts forward two reasons in support of his theory, viz. if ownership were laukika, then it would not be possible to make such assertions as ‘his wealth has been wrong- fully seized by another’ and the texts (vide Gautama X. 39) laying down the means of acquisition of wealth for the several varnas would be meaningless.483 Dharesvara held the same view. These views were claborately criticized by the Mit. According to the Sarhgrahakara,‘*+ partition creates ownership in the son as regards paternal wealth (in which he has no rights by birth). Dharesvara entertained the same opinion, which was vehemently controverted by the Mit., holding that partition takes place of that in which one has already ownership. Accordingto the Samgraha,+*s ownership does not consist in being able to dispose of a thing at one’s sweet will, since it is the इवऽ that prescribes the proper disposal or application of all things. The Sarhgrahat® laid down that the special share given to the eldest son, the practice of niyoga and the offering of a cow are all forbidden in the present age. Dharegvara also held the same ee ee STEER eons Se 480 ara विषान्तानि गुवैथेषु दापयेत्‌ । कोशादीनि पनक्ञीणि लघ्वषु यथाक्रमम्‌ ॥ स्मतिच ० ( न्य, 98 ); परा. मा, III. p. 153. 481 कोशान्तानि तुलादीनि गुरुष्वरथषु द्‌।पयेत्‌ | 482 पितृद्रारागतं द्रव्यं AAR च यत्‌ । कथितं दायशब्देन तद्विभागोधृनोच्यते ॥ धरा. मा, 1. ए. 478. 483 अस्यापदूतमेतेन न युक्तं वक्तुमन्यथा । विदहितोऽथोगमः wa यथावर्णं पृथक्‌ पृथक्‌ ॥ प्रतिम्रह्मजिवाणिज्यश्ुश्रुषाख्या यथाक्रमम्‌ | स्मतिच० ( व्य, P- 297 ), 48 क्रियते स्वं विभागेन पुत्राणां पेतकं धनम्‌ । स्वत्व सति प्रवर्तन्ते तस्मादुम्योः पृथक्‌ क्रियाः ॥ स्सतिच० ( न्य. ४. 259. ). 485 न च स्वमुष्यते तयत्स्ेष्छय। विनियुज्यते | विनियोगेोन्न सर्वस्य TAT नियम्यते।॥ 486 यथा नियोगधर्मो नो नानु कन्ध्यावधोपि वा । तथोदारविमागोपि नेव संति वतेते ॥ ` श्मतिच° ( भ्य. ४. 266 ); परा; मा, IIL ४. 493. 64, Sathgraha and Smrtisaigraha 241 view about the eldest son’s rights and the Mit. also approves of it and quotes anonymously the same verse (on Yaj. II. 117 ). The Sarngraha in two verses, apparently following Manu 9. 182-183, lays down that, if of several full brothers one has a son, all thereby have issue and that, if one out of the several wives of a person has a son, all the co-wives may be regarded as putravati. The Smfti- candrika says that Devasvami explained this dictum of the Sarhgraha- kara. The Sarhgraha says that the widow of a separated coparcener dying childless would inherit his whole estate if she submitted to Niyoga at the behests of her elders.487 This was also the opinion of Dhiaresvara and was refuted according to the Smpticandrika by Visvaripa. The Mir. also criticizes this view. He names Manu in connection with the succession of a person dying without leaving any one out of the twelve kinds of sons.48® He has in view Manu 9. 185. According to the Sarhgrahakara the order of succession to a sonless man is :— widow, the daughter who is a_ putrika, mother, paternal grandmother, father, full brothers, half- brothers, the line of the father ( pitrsantati ), the grand- father’s line, the great-grand-father’s line, other sapindas, sakulyas, the preceptor, the pupil, a fellow-student, a learned Brahmana. The Mit. notes that relying on Manu (9. 217) Dharegvara placed the paternal grandmother after the mother and before the father (thus agreeing with the Sarhgraha). ‘The Samgraha says that homicide and other offences when commited with force are called sahasa.+*9 It will be seen from the above that the views of the Sarhgraha- kara closely agreed with those of Dharesvara in many respects and were not approved of by the Mit. and other later writers. In vyavahara the Sarhgraha certainly marks a far more advanced stage than Yajfiavalkya and Narada, whose works do not contain the controvertial questions about ownership, partition etc. As Dhiare- Svara agrees very closely with the Smrtisarhgraha it may be argued that they were not separawd by a long interval of time. It has to be “7 भातृषु stray apteraey च । गुवोदेशन्नियोगस्थ। पत्नी घनमवाप्रयात्‌ ॥ परा. मा. ITI. p. 583. “8 अशोषात्मजहीनस्य प्रत्य धनिनो धनम्‌ । केनेदानीं मरहीतव्यमिश्येतभ्मभुनो ख्यते ॥ स्म॒तिच* ( ब्य. 7. 290, ), ^» मानुभ्यमारणाप्सीनि रुतानि प्रमे यदि । साहसानीति कथ्यन्ते यथादपाभ्मन्व a पुनः ॥ स्मृतिष° ( ष्व, 2.7). H. De 3३, 349 History of Dharmesdeted also noted that Visvaripa and Medhatithi do not refer to the Sarhgraha. It is not unlikely that the Sarhgraha was in vogue in the territory ruled over by Bhoja of Dhara and was therefore followed by Bhoja Dharesvara. Taking all things into consideration the Samgraha was probably compiled between the 8th and roth centuries of the Christian era. The Smrticandrika no doubt says in one place that the Sarhgrahakara follows the views of Dharegvara.49° But this statement should not be emphasized and interpreted too literally. All that it means is that both held the same opinion. There is no intention to state that Dhare$vara preceded the Sarhgrahakara. Chronology was never the strong point of Indian commentators, particularly when the writers whose opinions were referred to flourish- ed several centuries earlier. We know that Bharuci and Dharesvara preceded the Mitaksara which names both, but the Sarasvativilasa in several places ( €. g. pp. 347, 361, 383 ) says that Bharuci cannot tolerate the view of Vijfianesvara and also says that Dharegvara and Devasvami follow the view of Vijhanayogin ( p. 395 ) The Smrticandrika quotes several verses from the Sarhgraha on topics of sraddha in which Gautama, Katyayana, Paraéara, Manu, Yajfiavalkya, Yama and Saunaka are cited by name.‘9! 55, Samvarta Samvarta occurs as a Smytikara in the list of Yajnavalkya. He is cited on all topics of dharma by Visvarapa, Medhatithi, the Mit., .Haradatta, Apararka, the Smrticandrika and a host of other writers. _Vigvarapa quotes either wholly or in part about twenty verses of Sarhvarta on evening sandhya-vandana, on the duties of a yati and on the prayaécittas for theft, adultery of various kinds, deadly sins. Medhatithi quotes verses of Sarnvarta on Manu V. 88 and XI. 116. The Mit. quotes him on prayaégcitta and asauca ( ४३). III. 6, 17, 19 etc.). Apararka had a large work before him and quotes about 200 verses. 490 संग्रहकारस्य धरिश्बरमतानुसरित्वात्‌ । 491 Forexample ‹ याज्ञवर्क्यो Marae पात्रमु्तानमिच्छति + धमो eC रत्वा गृहकर्तापि शौनकः ॥ प्रीतिभरश्नादि देवानां ge sree । ' स्मृतिच° ( EL. 9. 484), compare या. I. 248. , after Sern पर्वमध्यैपाश् निवेशिताः (egal तदुत्तानं कृत्वा विप्रान्‌ विसजयेत्‌ ॥ 6४, Satwvarta 243 A few of the views of Sarhvarta on topics of vyavahara may be noted here. According to him oral testimony when in opposition to writing was to be discarded.492 This is in striking agreement with section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. He says that if houses and fields are being enjoyed ( by one person as against another ) when the king is there (i. €. when the central government is strong and there is no anarchy), then it is possession that counts and not mere writ- ing (1. €, possession will be protected and not mere _ paper title without possession).493 He lays down that no interest was to be allowed if not stipulated forin certain cases, viz., on stridhana ( when used by the husband ), on interest, on deposit (as long as it is not lost or deteriorated) and in suretyship.49* He enumerates ten wrongs ( aparadhas ) of which the king was to take cognisance suo motu without any private person’s complaint, viz., restraint of the defendant (before judgment), obstruction of the public road, women conceiving in adultery, becoming rich without any ostensible means, destruction of a meeting-hal!! and of trees and crops, kidnapping of maidens, sinning Brahmanas, champe:ty and maintenance, destruction of the roads where tolls are to be paid, the danger of robbers, rape, injury to cows and Brahmanas.‘95_ He prescribed that disputes were not be investigated on the full moon and new moon day, and on the 14th and 8th ##this. 492 Sea लेख्यक्रिया प्रोक्ता वाचिके asa मता । वाचके तु न सिभ्येत्सा टेख्यस्यो- परि या क्रिया ॥ टेख्यस्योपरि यत्साक्ष्यं Fé तदभिधीयते । अधर्मस्य हि ag git- मतो राजा विवजयेत्‌ i वाचिकयीद्‌ सामथ्यमक्षराणां विहन्यते । Rami सदन.शः स्यादनवस्था च जायते ॥ अपरां ए. 691-92. ^ भुज्यमाने TeAR दियमाने तु राजनि । मुक्तर्यस्य भवेत्तस्य न लेख्यं तत्न कारणम्‌ ॥ परा. मा, 111. 7, 146 ५9५ न्‌ वृद्धिः waa लाभे विक्षेपे च यथाध्थिते । संदिश्ये प्रतिभाल्ये च यदि न स्यत्स्वयं- कृता ॥ स्मतिष ° ( ष्य. ४.७7). 49 आसेधं पथि भङ्गं च यजय गर्भः पतिं विना । स्वयमन्वेषयेद्राजा विना चव विदादिना ॥ यस्य दृश्यस्य (1) संपा्त्न॑टृश्येतागमः कवित्‌ । स्वय ... दिना ॥ BA ARS सस्यष्याधानमेव च । स्व... ॥ कन्यापहारकं पापं विप च पतितं तथा। TU wae स्वयं राजा विष्ारयत्‌ ॥ षडूभागकरशुल्काथे मागेभेदकमेव च । रवराषू- चोयैमीतिं च परदारामिमैनम्‌ ॥ गोगाह्यणनिहम्तारं सस्यानां चैव घातकम्‌ । द्रेतान- पराधान्य स्वयं राजा विखारयेत्‌ ॥ स्मतिच ० ! परा, मा, 111. 44-45 244 Fitstory of Dharmatistra _ In Jivananda’s collection (part I, pp. 584-603) and in the Anandaérama collection ( pp. 411-424 ) there is a smrti of Sarhvarta in 227 and 230 verses respectively. It purports to have been declared to Vamadeva and other sages by Sarhvarta. Its main contents are :— that is the religious country where the black deer roam about,. rules _ of conduct for a Brahmacarin, prayaécittas for various lapses on the part of a student, duties of householder, eulogy of liberality, duties of forest hermit and sarhnyasin, prayascittas for various sins and actions. Sathvarta is sometimes cited as an authority ( verses 38, 123). He recommends the marriages of girls at the age of eight (verse 67 ) and condemns marriage with a maternal uncle’s daughter (verse 157). In a few Mss. (e.g. I. O. cat. No. 1367) the Sathvartasmrti comprised is different from the printed Samvarta. The printed smfti appears to be an epitome of a portion of the original smrti of sarhvarta. Many of the verses in the printed texts are found in Apararka. For example Apararka p. 49=Saihvarta verse 6 ; Apararka p. 693=Sarhvarta verses 107-108; Aparirka p. 71053 =Samhvarta verses 111-113; Apararka p. 1094 (eight verses out of which five )=Sarhvarta verses 130-134. The pada of Sathvarta which Visvaripa quotes (ardhastamitabhaskaram ) on Yaj. I. 25 occurs in verse 6 of the printed text. This shows that the printed smrti preserves very ancient material, the authenticity of which is vouched for by so early a writer as ViSvarapa. The Mit. quotes a Brhat-Sarhvarta (on ४2}. III. 265, 288 ). A Svalpa-Sarhvarta is quoted in Harinatha’s Smrtisara. 56. Harita The verse quotations from Harita on topics of vyavahara deserve some treatment. He defines vyavahara as that whereby the recovery of one’s own wealth and the avoidance of (doing) the duties peculiar to another ( caste or class ) are effected in due course of [४५.५० He further says that that judicial proceeding is proper which is based on the dictates of dharmagistra and arthasastra, which is in conform- ity with the usages of respectable people and which is free from tg COND GEER? अनयन च ॥ 496 स्वधनस्य यथा Sit: परधर्मस्य THAT । म्यायेन्‌ यत्र क्रियते श्यवहारः स उश्यते ॥ 56. Harita 245 fraud.497 Hiarita calis upon the king to know the Sastras, the duties of the varnas and of the lowest castes.49® He like Narada said that vyavahara had four aspects, each succeeding one prevailing against the preceding 06099, viz., dharma, vyavahara, caritra, nrpajia. He attached the greatest importance to writing and said that a transaction consigned to writing is effective even after great lapse of time and that he who has a writing in his hands is entitled to possession ( probably in cases of mortgages and pledges ).5°° He lays down very elaborate rules about the requisites and defects of plaints, about summoning the defendant, about the contents, faults and kinds of the defendant's reply, and about the burden of proof.s°: He protects long possession of property even if it originated without title provided it had lasted for three generations.5°? He says that title is the decisive factor as to various kinds gf possession, viz., when possession is forcibly taken by soldiers and freebooters, when a thing is stolen or kept concealed, when it was delivered through affection - and friendship or when it was lent on hire, or when it was handed over for wearing or safe custody or was borrowed through friendship.s° To illustrate the relation of title and possession he uses a very apt figure, viz. just as a branch cannot be seen expanding in the sky unless it is supported by the roots, so title is the root and possession 497 धर्मशाञखार्थशाशोक्तः रिशाचारादिलक्षणः। ६ टेन च ष्यपेतो यः व्यवह्यरः स धार्मिकः ॥ स्मृतिच ०, 498 शाञ्लाणि सर्वधर्मास्तु Hwa | भूपतिः । PATENT च ज्ञात्वा तत्सर्वमाचरेत्‌ ॥ स्मृति च ०, | 499 धर्नेण व्यवहारेण AIRC ATT । चतुष्पाद्‌ व्यवहारोयमुत्तरः पूर्वबाधकः ॥ सरस्वतीषिदास p. 58 (Mysore ed.). Vide नारद ( Intro. chap. verse 10 ). 500 gditenit कलेन लिखितः सिदिमाश्रुयात्‌ i cafrye, Bet यस्य॒ भवेदटुस्ते भोगै तघ्य विनिर्दिशेत्‌ । अपराकं ०० या. 7. 90. 501 Vide मिता. OD ay, IT. 6 and 7. 502 अन्यायेनापि यदुक्तं (en ्रान्नाथवापि च । न तच्छक्यं पराहतु ततीयं समुपागतम्‌ ॥ समृतिष ०} भ्यद्धिनागममत्यन्ते शुकतं पर्वोक्षिगिभेवत्‌ । न तच्छक्यमपाहतु कमाश्निपुरुषा- गतमू ` ॥ मिता, ०४ या. 7. 27. 903 मटवाटबलादुक्तं हृतं गुप्तमथापि वा । जेदमणयद्‌सं च प्रदं भाटकेन वा ॥ तथा वसनरकषार्थं याचितं प्रणयेन वा । एव॑ बहुविधे भोगे आगमो निणयः ETA: ॥ न मलेन विना शाख ovate प्ररोहति । भागमरतु aed युक्तिः शाला पकी्तिता ॥ स्मतिष ०, 346 History of Dharmatistra is its offshoot. According to him sureties are of five kinds,s°* abhaya (for keeping the peace), pratyaya ( for confidence ), dana ( return of money or carrying out one’s obligations ), upasthina (return of money lent on pledge) and darsana (for appearance ). He prescribed an absolute tutelage for women as regards the giving away of the husband’s wealth and allowed only maintenance to a young widow of improper conduct.5°s But Harita was humane in his treatment of even erring wives. He does not allow ahusband to cast adrift an adulterous wife and prescribes that she should be given food to keep body and soul together and bare clothes.5°6 It appears from the above that Harita the jurist must have flourished nearly at the same time as Brhaspati and Katyayana, i.e. between 400 and 700 A. D. के 57. Commentaries and Nibandhas ( digests ) The literature on Dharmasiastra falls into three well-marked but somewhat over-lapping periods. The first period is that of the ancient dharmasitras and of the Manusmrti. It is a period dating from at least the 6th century B. C. to the beginnings of the Christian cra. Next comes the period when most of the versified smytis were composed and it ranges from the first centuries of the Christain era to about 800 A. D. The third period is that of the commentators and the writers of digests. This covers over a thousand years from about the 7th century to 1800 A. D. The first part of this last period was the golden era of famous commentators. Commentaries on smrti works continued to be written almost to the end of this period, ¢. €. Nandapandita wrote the commentary called Vaijayanti on the Visnudharmasitra in the 17th century. But the general tendency from the 12th century onwards was to write works not professing to be commentaries on a particular smrti, but works that were in the nature of digests containing a synthesis of all the dicta of smrti writers on topics of dharma. Examples of this class ६04 अभये प्रत्यये दाने उपस्थानेथ दनि । पथ्येव प्रकारेष TTT Merry: ॥ हमतिच ° 505 दानां वा धनाथ वा ame वा विशेषतः one वा feat a ज्ञी स्वातन्श्य महति ॥ स्म॒तिच ०; विधवा यावनस्था Sed भवति ककंशा । आयुषः क्षपणा तु दातव्यं जीवनं तद्‌। ॥ ato On या. IL 135 | 506 भायोय। व्यमिचार्ण्या tenn न विधते । gentied HIST अभःदाययां श्थियत्‌ ॥ स्मातच ९ 57. Commentariesand Nibandhas (digests) $47 + of works are the Kalpataru, the Smrticandrika, the Caturvarga- cintamani, the Ratnakaras of Candesvara. Even when in the earlier part of this period writers professed to compose only commentaries on particular works, they adopted the style of digests trying to introduce order out of a chaotic mass of Smpti dicta and explaining away apparent contradictions. For example, Visvarapa’s commentary (in the 4cara and prayascitta sections), the Mitaksara and Apararka’s work, though professing to be commentaries on Yajiiavalkya, are really in the nature of digests. In fact there is no hard and fast line of demarcation between a {70 and a nibandha (digest). Vijiianesvara is described by the Dvaitanirnaya of Sankara- bhatta as the most eminent of all writers of nihandhas. Therefore, though it is usual to speak of the third period as one of commentators and nibandhakaras, there is no necessity in this work to observe any sharp line of distinction between the two. In the following pages a few prominent and typical commentators and nibandhakaras who have written on allor most of the branches of dharmasastra and whose works have attained classical rank will be dealt with in chronological order as far as that can be done with any accuracy. 58. Asahaya Dr. Jolly in his edition of the Naradasmrti (B. 1. series) has incorporated a portion of the bhasya of Asahaya as revised by Kalyanabhatta. Even this revised version comes up to only verse 21 of the fifth title abhyupetya-asusriisa. The exact relation of Kalyana- bhatta’s labours to the original bhasya cannot be accurately gauged from the opening’*’ words ‘finding that the Naradabhasya composed by Asahaya was spoilt ( bhrasta) by bad scribes, Kalyana composes this after revising the ancient one’. The colophon at the end of the first chapter of the Vyavaharamatrka says that Kalyanabhatta revised the bhasya of Asahaya at the encouragement of KeSavabhatta.5°? Kalyanabhatta seems to have taken great liberties with the text of the original bhasya. On p. 9 verse 15 ( raja satpurusah sabhyah Sastram ganakalekhakau ), the comment on Sastra is ‘Manu-Narada- On te षि ५ ५ ७७» ^ = ०० ~ ~~ = ०० न पि, भ ए. 1 ए 7 ` त 17 ष श, ERE ae ee 1 [ जनका पुन; । ( first-verse). ५08 इति असहायनारदुभाष्ये केशवभटोन्ताधति-कल्यणमहपरिश थित-भ्यवहारमातुकायां मथमोभ्यायः । 248 History of Dharmatistra - Visvarapatmakam’. If Visvaripa named here be identical with the the Vigvarapa who commented on ४३). (as is almost certain ), this passage could not have occurred in Asahaya’s bhasya. Visvaripa, in commenting on १२}. III. 263-64,fmentions: Asahaya by name and cites his explanation of a sitra of Gautama (22. 13). The name Kalyanabhatta frequently occurs in the printed commentary itself (9. 81, 86, 89 ).5°9 In the I. 0. ms. there is a salutation to Siva and Ganega at the beginning. There isa ms. of the Naradiyabhasya as printed by Dr. Jolly in the Deccan College collection (No. 27 of 1874-75). It does not contain the first folio and curiously enough it ends just where the printed text stops. Dr. Jolly omits a few lengthy passages occurring in the ms. and generally indicates such omissions by dots. In a few cases Dr. Jolly omits only a word or two for no apparent reason, €. g. on p. 8 (folio 7b of No. 27 of 1874-75 ) he omits the wotd ‘paramasamrddhya’ after ‘vyavahirah’ and before ‘caturnam-api varnanim’. The Haralata of Aniruddha who was the guru of king Ballala- sena of Bengal the author of Adbhutasagara (about 1168 A. D. ) tells us that Asahaya composed a bhasya on the Gautamadharma- stitra.s'° Visvaripa also cites, as‘said above, Asahaya’s explanation of a sitra of Gautama. It appears that Asahaya probably wrote a commentary on the Manusmrti also. A passage of the Sarasvativilasas'' says that partition of dharma was approved of by smrtikaras like Manu, 509 तथा चोक्तमेव सामान्यभ्राहपन्रलक्षणवि चारप्रकरणे Soares | ए. 81 ; यथोक्ते त्रिषषट- केख्यप्रकरणकारकल्य।णमटरेन । ४. 86; कृत्याणरूतं श्टोकश्रयमस्ति । P- 89. 510 हारलता (8. 1. series) 7. 35. ‹ गौतमः | बाठदेशान्तरितमयजितानां TUT | ( गौ. ध. सु. 14. 44) यन्न मृतोऽशौचाभ्यन्तरे न श्रूयते तदेशाम्तरं तन्न मृतो देशः- न्तरिति इति गौतममाष्यरूतासहायेन emma’, हारलता >, (गोतमः । पिण्डनिवृत्तिः सतमे पञ्चमे वा । ( गो. ध. च्‌. 14. 18 ) । अश्रासहायश्पार्या । यद्‌। पितपितामहमपितामहाञ्लयो जीषन्ति तदु परपितामहादुश्वं Gea पिण्डदानम्‌ |. इदं त॒ व्याख्यानं न शोभनं प्रतिमाति ॥ 811 धमैविमागो मनुयान्नवस्क्यादिस्मृतिकाराणां तस्सृतिन्यारूयातृणानसहायमेधातिधिषह्ञा- नेशवरापराकणां निबन्दणा चग्बकाकारादीन च संमत एष । सरलतीषिलास ०५५. °° ‘ead p. 348 ( Mysore ed.). 58 Asahaya 249 21024114, by their commentators, viz. Asahaya, Medhatithi, Vijfianesvara and Apararka and by writers of nibandhas, viz. the author of the Candrika and others. Here the order in which the com- mentators are named requires that Asahaya like Medhatithi was known to be a commentator of Manu. This conclusion is to some extent corroborated by the fact that the Vivadaratnakara}'? quotes with reference to Manu 9. 182 the words of Asahaya thereon. On Manu 8. 156 Medhatithi quotes the opinion of Asahaya.5"3 The foregoing establishes that Asahiya composed bhasyas on the Gautamadharmasitra, on the Manusmrti and on Narada. When the Smrticandrikas'+ refers to a bhasya of Narada it is most probably referring to Asahaya. In the Mit. ( on Y4j. II. 124) the opinion of Asahaya and Medhatithi on the right of an unmarried sister to receive one-fourth as provision for her marriage from her brothers is preferred to that of Bharuci.5'5 This seems to be rather areference to Asahaya’s commentary on Manu ( 9. 118 ) which contains a rule similar to Yaj. (II. 124 ), while Narada contains no such rule about a fourth share. It is a strange irony of fate that the The aeqaifawia often referstoa writer called निचन्धनक।र्‌. Heis— likely to be असहाय, Vide सरस्व्तीविलास ए. 457 ¢ अन्न (मनुस्मृत। ) वाक्पर्ष्यर- दण्डप।रु्यर्खःसंग्रहणानन्तरं दायविभागः Pas: | निचन् नकारेण तु जयोदुश्च वेवाद्‌- पदं दाय इत्यक्तम्‌ । उभयोमह्ान्‌ विरोधः । स पररद्ियते । तथाक्तं नारदेन । . °, नारदवचनानुस।रि निचन्धनकारवचनम्‌ | अतश्च तदृव्याख्येयस्यापिं गोतमसजस्य नारद्वचनानुसरित्वमेष ।१ ; तथा च गोतमः | aI पुमन्द्ण्डथस्तद्रयं a रते t renal विवृतो निषन्धनकारेण ` P- 468. 512 The verse of मनु is ्रातृणामेकजातानामेक्यत्पु्रवान्‌ भवेत्‌ | The words of असहाय are अन्नासहायेनोक्तं cat सति श्रातुजे aint सपत्नीपुत्र क्षेत्रजाद्यः परतिनिधयो न BAST TIA ।' वि, र. ४. 583. 53 यज्वासहयायनारद्‌ानां त॒ मते क।किणीमात्रमपि शक्तः कारणपरिवुत्तिकाले द पयितभ्यः । on the verse अदुशयिंत्वा तन्नैव, 514 स्मुतिच ० ( ष्य. ?. 36) on दुशनविधि says ‘oq तदीयभाष्ये भ्याख्यातम्‌ । तथा च नारद्‌; । ओीरुतान्यपरमाणानि कायौण्याहुरनापदि ।...अच्रापवादपरदुशनार्थमाह स एष । विशेषतो गृहक्षेजरदानाधमनविक्रयाः । इति । गृहृ्षेत्रयोदानाधमनविकयस्त्वापयप्यस्व~ ISA न ससिभ्यन्तीत्यथः | एवं तद्भाष्ये व्याख्यातम्‌ | 8 अतोसह्मयमेधातिथिपमुतीनां व्याख्यानमेव चतुरस्रं न माङ्चेः । मिताक्षरा, H, 2, 32. 250 History of Dharmasastra very name of Asahaya who is profusely quoted by the Sarasvati- vilasa in the first half of the sixteenth century was forgotten by later writers, so much so that the Balambhatti understands the word Asahaya ( in note 515 above ) as an attribute of Medhatithi in the sense of ‘ peerless As Visvaripa and Medhatithi both name Asahaya, his lowest limit is about 750 A. D. How much earlier he flourished it is difficult to say. He can hardly be earlier than the 6th century. In the com. on Narada ( p. 48 ) there is a story from Pataliputra about the repayment of a debt by sons, grandsons and great-grandsons. It has been argued ( Calcutta Law Journal, vol. 17 p. 59 ) that, as Pataliputra was a deserted city in the middle of the 7th century and as the reference shows that Pataliputra was a living and flourish- ing city, Asahaya must have lived long before the 7th century. But as the very authenticity of the text of the bhasya is doubtful owing to the drastic ‘revision’ of Kalyinabhatta, such a conclusion is extremely hazardous. In the ms. of the bhasya other places such as Vatapadraka (probably modern Baroda), Avavadu and Sarhvaduka are mentioned. There is nothing to show that the author was either a native of or had a first-hand knowledge of Pataliputra. He might have been relying on traditions when he gave the story. Dr. Jolly not being aware of the express mention of Asahaya by Medhatithi argued that he flourished earlier than Medhatithi (Tagore Law Lectures p. 5; $. 8. E. vol. 25 p. VII) on the ground that the Mit. and the Sarasvativilasa always place Asahaya before Medhatithi whenever authorities on vyavahara are enumerated. Dr. Jolly’s conclusion is right as shown above, but his reasoning is faulty. There is hardly anything of chronology in the order in which authors are named, since we find that the Sarasvativilasas?® names Vijfianesvara even before Asahaya, though the former flourished centuries after the latter. Some of the views attributed to Asahaya may be quoted here. The definition of daya (heritage ) given by the Mit. was identical with Asahaya’s.5'7 Asahaya explained the dictum of Usanas that 616 स. वि. ( pare 195 ) ' विज्ननेश्वरासहायमेधातिथीनामियं eareat’ (2. 1 of Mysore ed. ). 817 sragratgrrafirsdiat तु यत्स्वामिसंबन्धदेषे निमिशादन्यस्य स्वं भवति तद्‌ वुयशष्दनोऽयते इति । स, वि. ( pare 19 ), 58, Asahaya 251 fields were impartible by taking it to refer to the son of a Brahmana from a Ksatriya wife, who does not participate in land gifted to a Brahmana.5*® The Mit. on Yaj. II. 119 takes the same view. Asahaya held that as regards succession to the Sulka of a woman even step-brothers should be given something, though the major portion would go to the full brothers.s'2 According to Asahaya, the wealth of a childless Brahmana went to the teacher, then to the teacher's son, then to the teacher’s widow, the pupil, pupil’s son, pupil’s widow (one after another ) and then to the fellow-student.5?° The Vivadaratnakaras?! (p. 578) quotes the Prakaga as referring to the views ot Asahayaand Medhatithion Manu IX. 198 that the special rule of Manu applies to all the stridhana belonging to a Ksatriya woman who has a brahmani co-wife. The Vividaratnakaras?? quotes a verse of Narada about masa and a verse of the bhasyakara thereon. It probably refers to Asahaya’s bhasya. 59. Bhartryajna This seems to have been a very ancient commentator. Mcdhatithis?3 in his bhasya on Manu 8. 3 says ‘other explanations have been well brought out by Bhartryajfia and they should be understood from his work’. Trikanda-Mandana (who flourished before 1100 A.'D.) in his Apastambasatradhvanitartha-karikas*4 (I. 41) refers to the views of Bhartryajiia that one who had committed to 518 स, षि, para 195 ¢ or p. 371). 519 अतश्च कन्याश्रुल्कविषये सोदरास।द्राषमागेऽसोदराणामपि wears देयामित्यसहयायभ्या- ख्यानमसहायम्‌ । स, वि, para 314 (or ए. 384). Here there is a play on the word असहाय which means ‘ unsupported, baseless.’ 521 वित्रा दत्तमिति स्रीधनमाश्रोपलक्षणमित्यसदहायमेधातिथिरति (थी इति 1) प्रकाशकारः। ०४ तथा चोक्तं नारदेन-माषो विंतिभागस्तु हेयः कार्यापणस्य च । स च राजतो विव- क्षितः । तथा च भाष्यकारः। सोवर्णमाषकेः संख्या दण्डकमसु शस्यते । पनां शस्यचरणे माषरम्येत्य राजतेः ॥ वि. ₹. ०. 234. 8S ष्याख्यानाम्तराणि भरतयज्ेनेव सम्यक्ृतानि TA तत एवावगन्तस्यानि सर्वथा पमाण- मूलानि । 4 अदाभ्ययनसंसिदविज्ञानरहितोपि सन्‌ । नातीवाधिक्रियाथन्यो भैयज्ञादिदिशेनात्‌ ॥ त्रिकृाण्डमण्डन ( ए, {, series ),: 252 ` History of Dharmatdetra memory the text of the Veda had the privilege (the adbikara) of ~ consecrating the sacred fires, though he may be innocent of the meaning of the Vedic texts. From Ananta’s bhasya it appears that Bhartryajfia composed a bhasya on the Katyayanasrautasatra which had been lost (utsanna) in the former’s day. From Gadadhara’s comments on the Paraskara grhyasitra it appears that Bhartryajiia commented on Paraskara.s?s5 The Grhastharatnakara of Cande- §vara quotes Bhartryajiia’s explanation of the word sarhuthhaga occurring in Gautamadharmasitra ( 10. 39 ‘svami riktha-kraya-sarh- vibhaga-parigrahadhigamesu)’.52* The Nity4carapradipa (B. I. series) after quoting Gautamadharmasutra ( 11. 29 varnasramah svadhar- manisthah &c. ) cites the comment of Bhartryajias?7 on the word tac-chesena occurring in that sitra. Therefore it appears probable that Bhartryajfia like Asahaya was an ancient commentator of the Gautamadharmasitra. The Grhastharatnakara, after quoting from Vasistha (17. 1 ) and Visnu the well-known verse of the Aitareya- brahmana (rnam-asmin sarh-nayati) cites the explanation of Bhartr- yajiia as to the word ^ jitasya ’ occurring therein.5?8 Since Bhartryajiia is quoted by Medhatithi who also mentions Asahaya but not Visvarapa, it follows that Bhartryajia must have flourished before 800 A. D. and was probably a contemporary of or slightly later than Asahaya. ¢ [ 60. Visvarupa The commentary of Visvaripa called Balakridi on the Yajna- valkya-smrti has been recently published in two parts by M.M.T Ganapati Sastri in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series. The Mit. states in the introductory verses that the dicta of Yaj. were expanded by es 55 on पारस्करगह्य 7.1. 2. ‹ एते qog भ॒संस्कारा दनि मनयज्ञमाध्ये अग्न्यथा दृतिं ककावःध्यायाः ’, on प्‌।रस्कर 7. 2 1. the ajsq of waaay on the word दार- क्क is quoted ; on the सूच ' केश मितो ARONA &९. (प)रस्कर II. 5 28 ) गदाधर 9०55 ^ इदं च सूत्रं gaa steed तिष्ठति भतृयज्ञककादिम्रन्थु नोपलभ्यते "* 526 संविभागो मतृदाय इति मतृयश्चः । गृहस्थरत्नाकर्‌ folio 78a of D. O. ms, No 44 of 1883-84, 697 अच्र तच्छेषेण इति तस्यव निस्याचारकर्मेणः Davila aga: । नित्याच रमरदृप p. 12. 528 अन्न जानस्योति जण.पाकरणयोग्यस्येति मर्तेयज्नः । गृहस्थरत्नाकर 1०1० 1888. 60. Visvariipa 258 the voluminous or ample ( vikata) explanations of Visvarapa. In commenting on ४३}. I. 81 the Mit. tells us that Visvaripa looked upon the words of Yaj. I. 79 ( tasmin yugmiasu sarhviset ) as a niyama. In Visvartipa’s commentary on Yaj. I. 80 ( evath gacchan &c. ) we do find that the verse of ४३]. and similar passages of Manu ( 3. 45 ), Vasistha and Gautama ( $. 1 ) are understood to contain a niyama and nota parisamkhya.s*9 On Yaj. Ill. 24 the Mit. informs us that Visvaripa, Medhatithi and Dharesvara looked upon certain texts of Rsyasrhga on asauca as in conflict with well-known smytisand discarded them. Mr. S. Sitaram Sastri published ( in 1900 at Madras )the text and translation of ViSvariipa’s comment on inheritance and Mr. Setlur also published the vyavahara section. In the following pages the Trivandrum edition is relied on. The printed com. of Visvaripa on the vyavahdra section is extremely meagre and scarcely merits the epithet vikata applied to it by the Mit. But the comment of Visvarapa on the 2८412 and prayascitta sections is truly voluminous and compares favourably with the Mit. The style of Viévaripa is simple and forcible and resembles that of the great Sankaracirya. He quotes profusely from Vedic works, mentions the Carakas and Vajasaneyins(on ४३} 1. 32), the Kathaka ( on Yaj. III. 237 and 243 ) and very often supports his position by quotations from the Rgveda (e.g. on Yaj. II. 121 and 206 ), the Brahmanas(e. g. the Satapatha on Yaj. 1. 53 and JIL. 257 ) and from the Upanisads ( €, g. on ४३. IF. 117, the well-known Chandogya passage about the ordeal for theft and on Yaj. I. 50 Chandogya II. 23. ro about the three branches of dharma). He speaks of the pada-pajha and the kramapa{ha as duc to human agency (on Yaj. III. 242 ). He frequently quotes the Grhyasatras of Paraskara and less frequently those of Bharadvaja and Asvalayana. He cites a host of smrtikiras.53° Most of the quotations attributed to 529 मानवं तु ‹ ऋतुकालाभिगामी स्यात्‌ ° इति ... नियमपरतेथव न्यःख्येयम्‌ । एतेनेव. .. वाशिष्ठं भ्याख्यातम्‌ |... गातमीयं त्वनत॒परिसंख्या्थं * ऋतावुपेयात्‌ ' इति केचित्‌ । TAT नियमार्थमेव व्याख्येयम्‌ ।. 930 The स्मतिक!र mentioned by name are : अङ्गिरस्‌, अन्रि, अपस्तम्ब, उशनस्‌, कात्यायन, काश्यप, WI, FAM, गतम, जातुकणे ( "णि ), दक्ष, नरद्‌, पराशर, पारस्कर, पितामह, पुलस्त्य, Tals, बुस्यति, बोधायन, भरद्वाज, भृग्‌, मनु, TSAY, यम, याश्षवल्क्य, वृदुयाह्नवल्क्य, वसिष्ठ, विष्णु, व्यसि, शङ्ख, शतातप, शोनक, संवते, सुमम्त, स्वयमु (be मनु ), हारीत, 254 History of Dharmastistra Svayarnbha are found in the extant Manusmrti, but this is not the case with the quotations ascribed to Bhrgu ( vide p. 138 above ). Most of the quotations from Brhaspati ( even on such topics as repayment of debts, sureties, the rights of Sadraputra ) are in prose, only a few being in verse ( €, £. 4 verse about ordeals on Yaj. II. 117, a verse about the method of partition on Yaj. II. 153). It appears therefore that Visvaripa either knew a work of Brhaspati in prose on arthasastra in which occurred a few verses or he had before him a prose work of Brhaspati and a versified smrti of Brhas- pati, both of which he regarded as the compositions of the same author. He quotes a verse ( on Yaj. I. 328 ) from Visalaksa, a well- known writer on politics quoted even by Kautilya. He refers to the arthasastra of Usanas along with that of Brhaspati. Kautilya is nowhere quoted by name. The learned editor of Visvarapa thinks ( Intro. p. V ) that ViSvaripa took Brhaspati and Visalaksa as drsa writers long anterior to ४३}. and therefore used their dicta to elucidate and support Yaj., while he omits Kautilya because he thought Kautilya to be posterior to Yaj. This argument contains several fallacies. In the first place it is wrong because Visvaripa quotes verses from Narada and Katydyana to supplement Y4j. There is nothing to show that Visvariipa regarded Narada and Katyé- yana also as anterior to Y4j. and we have seen above that they are several centuries later than the smrti of Yaj. Moreover Kautilya himself looked upon both Brhaspati and Visalaksa as high autho- rities and so Visvarapa might have quoted them rather than Kautilya. Even taking the latest date assigned to Kautilya (about 3rd century A. D. ), he flourished several centuries before Vigvarapa. It is impossible to believe that Visvarapa was in possession of the exact chronological relation of Yaj. and Kautilya. Many scholars, besides, place Kautilya’s work centuries before Yaj. It appears, however, that Visvariipa had the work of Kautilya before him. On Yaj. I. 307 he speaks of ministers tested by the four allurements ( upadha ) of dharma, artha, kama andbhaya. This is an echo of Kautilya (I. 10 ). On Yaj I. 343 Vis. refers to the view of some that a march should be made when neighbouring chiefs are over- whelmed in calamities.53! This is the view of Kautilya almost in 531 तथा बाहू :-सामन्तन्योर््यसनसम्येन wae तममिश्रमेव ्योयात्‌-इति । विश्वकप) compare " तत्यंसामम्तभ्यसने यतव्यममिन्नं वा इत्यमिन्रममियायात्‌ | seer VIL. 5; कं पुनस्तन्मन्त्रणीयम्‌ | उक्तं अ दिकमजारदूनस्ंमेषण-कापचिकोवुलिथित 60, Vitvartipa | 286 the same words. On ४३}. I. 341 Vis. speaks of the manifold aspects of the work of a minister, some words of his comment being almost identical with Kautilya’s. Visvaripa’s work is thoroughly saturated with the lore of the Parvamimarmsa. He quotes Jaimini by name (on Yaj. I. 225 where Jaimini VI. 8. 15 is quoted ). Curiously enough he applies the term nyaya to Mimamsa. He takes ‘ nyaya-mimarhsa’ in Yaj. I. 3 as one vidya, while he notes that others explain yaya as the system of logic propounded by Aksapada. He quotes the sitras of Jaimini as those of Yajnikas who know 10404 ( €. ९. ०7 Yj. I. 53 he quotes Jaimini I. 3. 16 and on Yaj I. 87 he quotes Jaimini VI. 8. 17 ). He applies the epithet naiyayika to a mimamsaka like Sabara and speaks of the mimarhsakas as nyayavidab.53* He mentions the Sabarbhasya by name (on Yaj. III. 243 ) and in several places quotes the very words of Sabara (e.g. on Yaj. III. 181 ).533 He quotes the slokavartika of Kumiarila( I. 12 the verse ‘sarvasyaiva hi &c. ) in his introductory remarks. In his comment on Y4j. J. 7 he cites over fifty verses in the nature of karikas dealing with the relation of Sruti and smrti and kindred topics. These verses are his own composition, as in one of them he assures us that a certain point will be dealt with by him in detail in the section on Sraddha.53+ In interspersing his commentary with karikas of his own and in their style and pithiness he greatly resembles Kumarila. Through- out his work he relies upon mimarhsa maxims and methods of we च NENA BAS BA TAT MAT TA चारप्पश्चनिरूपणपरप्रयुककापचिकादुश्ठेदङगादि- करणकन्यासंभदानकुमारचिन्ता-अन्तःपुरपचारायनेकविधं च । eqay, The words कृ [पटिको ... व्यजन ०००५०८० काटिल्य ( 1. 11 ) and कटिल्यु has chapters on राजपुन्नरक्षण ( i.e. BAT AAT ) RAGSIT ( i. @. अन्तश्ुद- प्रचार ), दुगेविधान and दूतप्रणिधि, 992 न्यायविद््च धार्मिकाः | अपि वा सर्वधर्मः स्यात्‌ » न्यायविद्श् Tider: सर्वर्थत्वादु. ब्रार्थ न्‌ प्रयोजयेदित्याहुः ( this is जमिनि VI. 8.17 ) $ न च BAIA विशेषण विवक्ष्यत इति व्य,यविद्‌ः ( ० याज्ञ. ITT. 250 ) The last is a well- known ममिंसाभ्याय. “aa च नेयायिकाः ‘Ae वचनस्य तिभ।रोस्ति' इत्याहुः, These words occur in शुध्रभाष्य ०० जैमिनि LIT. 2. 3. ०२ तथ। चोक्तं “Saar भते भवम्तं भविप्यन्तमित्यायेवंजातीयकम्े शक्नोःपवगमयितुम्‌ › हवि | This is शाबरभाष्य 9. 4 ( 8. I. edition). 44 सवे चेततप्रपश्चेनं gear: श्रादुसेग्रहे । Maer part 1/7. 16. 366 History of तावत्य discussion. For example, on Yaj. I. 4-5 he discusses the rule ot Jaimini II. 4. 8 ff (about ° sarvasakhapratyayam ekarh karma’ ) in its application to smrtis ; on Yaj. I. 225 he relies upon the position that words like yava and varaha are to be taken as employed in the Vedas in the same sense in which Sisfas use them ( vide Jaimini I. 3.9) ; on Yaj. II. 144 he speaks of wealth ( dravya ) being purusartha, where he alludes to the well-known distinction between kratvartha and purusartha, the subject of Jaimini’s 4th chap. His commentary on ४३). II] 212, 237, 262 are fine examples of his superb skill in the interpretation and reconciliation of apparently conflicting texts. Though Visvaripa was a past master in Purvamimarhsa lore, his philosophical views seem to have been identical with those of the great Sankara. According to him, moksa results from correct knowledge alone and the whole sarhsdra is due to avidya.s3s He quotes anonymously one of Gaudapada’s karikass36 (III. 5 ) on Yaj. IT. 134. He speaks on २}. III. 103 of Narada who knew the Veda of music ( gitivedavid ), of purana (on III. 175), and quotes verses ( 01 Yaj. III. 85 ) from an abhidhanakoga (lexicon ) and from 2 Namaratnamala ( on III. 266 ). He speaks of the sloka of Bhiksa- tana (on III. 66). Heisin this probably referring to the Bhiksa- tanakavya,'37 which is mentioned by the Sahityadarpana. Among commentators he mentions Asahaya’s bhasya on Gautama by name ( on Yaj. IIT. 263). On पठ). III. 256 he explains Mleccha as pulindas and Tajikas ( 1, €, Arabs ). 535 In his com. ०० याज्ञवल्कय 111. 66 he says ‹ अपवर्गार्थं हि पारिषाञ्यं ज्ञानेक- साधनं न TT कर्मणा प्रयोजनमिन्युक्तमेव “ । } ° तच्वाग्रहणात्मकेनविदयोत्थत्वालपश्च- स्थेवमादिचोयानवकाक्ष एव । ... तत्त्वेन AMO नान्यहस्त्वन्तरमस्तीति बरह्मविदां स्थितिः । . 536 तथा चहृ-~यथकरिमन्पटाकाशे रजोधूमादिभिरयुते । न at संयुज्यन्ते सुख Ba तथात्मनः ॥ इति | तथान्येरपि-~धूमपुणेघटानां च यस्येकशट्येव रेचनम्‌ । उत्पार्ध क्रियते तन्न जायते saa निभम्‌ ॥ Ea, In the Anandasrama edition of गोडपाद्‌ the fourth pada i तद्ज्जीवा सुंखादीभेः, 1 could not trace the kartka मपूणे °. 537 Vide I. 0, cat. p. 1448 for the मिक्षाटनक्ाव्य of शिवभक्तिदास alias सुतक्ष qe Who ००९8 वल््रीकिं, कालिदास and the कादृम्बरी of बाण, =e, 60. Védvariiva $57 It has been shown above (§34 pp. 169-170) how ViSvaripa’s text of Yaj. varied in some respects from that of the Mit. ; how he fre- quently refers to the views of commentators of व]. earlier than himself (10 the words ‘ apare, ° ‘ anye’ ), how he proposes several explanations of the same words in several cases. Dr. Jolly (Journal of Indian History 1924, pp. 7-8 ) says that the citations of Vis. in the Smpticandrika about his having refuted the views of DhareSvara cannot be traced in the printed Balakrida, as _also the reference to Vis. in the Mit. on Yaj. I. 81 and II. 135. It has been shown above (note 529) that the printed Vis on व}. I. 80 does contain the view attributed to it by the Mit. As regards the Mit. on Yaj. II. 135 1६ has to be noted that the Mit. does not mention Vis. by name there, but only speaks of ‘ bhagavan acarya,53® ’ which words are interpreted by the Subodhini and the Balambhattias referr- ing to Visvaripa. It is true that the printed Vis. does not contain in so many words the explanation attributed by the Mit. to ‘ bhagavan acarya.’ But it is worth considering that in the printed Vis. the two quotations from Manu and Sankha do occur and are put inthe mouth of an objector and are explained away in a way somewhat similar to.that put forth in the Mit.539 As regards the passages of the Smrticandrika, the matter requires careful examina- tion. The Smrticandrika (II. p. 294 Gharpure’s ed. ) says that according to the Sarngrahakara a widow was allowed to succeed to her sonless husband’s wealth if she submitted to niyoga, that the 538 The words of the Mit. are: यदपि मतं पिता RITAET रिक्थं WAT एव वा ( मनु 9-185) इति मनुस्मरणात्‌, तथा-स्वयांतस्य ह्यपुत्रस्य MITA Bee तव्‌- भवे पितरो इरेयातां ज्येष्ठा वा पत्नीति शङ्कस्मरणास्च अपुत्रस्य धनं भातृगामीति Me भरणं चास्य कुर्वीरन्‌ श्ीणामाजीवनक्षयादित्यादिवचनास्ब भरणोपयुक्तं धनं पत्नी लमत इत्यपि स्थितम्‌ । एवं स्थिते aged aga wala भरणोपयुक्तं पत्नी Tala शेषं च भ्रातर यदा तु पर्नीभरणमात्नोपयुक्तमेव द्रव्यभस्ति ततो न्यूनं .षा तदा किं eae गृह्णाति उत भातरोपीति विरोधे पृवैबलीयस्त्वज्षापनार्थं पत्नी इुष्ितिर इत्यार्धमिति । तदुप्यन्न मगवानाचार्यो न REN । यतः । पिता इरेद्पुत्रस्य ... हाते विकल्पस्मरणान्नेदं SATA तु धनम्रहणेधिकारपदशंनमान्रपरम्‌ । तश्चासत्यपि पल्वादिगणे घटते हात CTT 1 ०9 ननु एतदृष्यस्ति । * पिता हरं ,.. वा › इति । मातन्यसस्यामेतद्‌ द्रष्यम्‌ | कथं शङ्क वचनं ' स्वर्यातस्य ,,. पत्नी ` हति । उकलक्षणपत्नीवुदिश्रमावे सोदर्यजाघ्नमिपायं तत्‌ । aed, 8, 9, 33. 96 History of नय same was the view of Dharesvara and that Visvarapa refuted the view of Dharesvara. In no place does the printed Vis. name Dharegvara. The words of the Smrticandrika are not to be taken literally. It will be shown below that the author, Devanna- bhatta, flourished about 1200 A. D., while Dharegvara flourished between 1000-1050 A. D. Devanna had no_ correct idea of their relative chronological position. It has been shown above (p. 249) how though Asahaya is named by the Mit., the Sarasvati- vilasa very often says that Asahaya does not like (or tolerate ) the views of Vijfianesvara. Similarly the same work ( para 392 ) says that DhareSvara and Devasvimin do not tolerate the view of Vijia- nesvara, but Dharesvara is one of the predecessors of Vij. actually named by him. So all that the Smrticandrika means is that Dharesvara and Visvaripa differed in their views on the particular points mentioned by it. The word patni is taken by Vis. to mean a widow who is pregnant at the’ time of her husband’s. death and quotes the sitras of Vasistha and Gautama in support of his view as jnapakas. So this view entirely differs from the view of Dhare- $vara that the widow ofa 5001655 person succeeds if she submits to ntyoga. The Smrticandrika ( II. p. 300 ) says that the Sarhgraha- kara placed the father’s mother immediately after the mother and before the father, that the Sarhgrahakara relied on the same argu- ments that were employed by DhareSvara and that Visvaripa and others refuted those arguments. ‘The passage in the printed Vié. is somewhat corrupt in this place. Vis. does place the mother before the father on the ground of the word mata occurring first when the word ^ pitarau’ or the compound ‘ mdatapitarau’ is expanded. The comment does mention the verse of Manu (9. 217 ) about the grandmother, but it makes no clear sense, as it stands.54° For the reason given above Rai Bahadur M. M. Chakravarti ( JASB for 1912, p. 345 and for 1915, p. 322) is not right when he places Visvarapa later than Bhojadeva because of the remarks of the Smrti- candrika. In the works of Jimiétavahana (viz. the Dayabhaga and the Vyavaharamatrka ), in the Smyticandrika, the Haralata, and other later works like the Sarasvativilasa, the views of Visvaripa are frequently cited and discussed. Several such citations have been 64 क्षनियादिषु पुत्राणां तु पितरि मातुरमावे ' पितुमीता हरेद्‌ धनम्‌ ' इत्यस्य विषयः । 60, Visvarlipa 259 already examined by me ( JBBRAS for 1926, pp. 200-204 ). From considerations of space I do not repeat here the discussion of those passages. In the Grhastharatnakara‘5+' of Candegvara (D.C. No. 44 of 1883-4, folio 133a) the explanation of Visvarapacarya on Yaj. I. 135 is cited, which does not exactly tally with the printed Vié. Hemiadris4 refers to ViSvaripa’s explanation given in his section On partition which does not occur in the printed text. The result of the examination of these citations is that the printed text of Vis. is in the main genuine, but that in a few cases ( particularly in the vyavahiara section ) it is corrupt or deficient. Though Vis. holds the same view as the Mit. that ownership does not for the first time arise on partition but that partition takes place of whatis already ( jointly ) owned, yet on numerous points the two disagree. A few of them may be set out here. , (1) Vis. allows (on Yaj. II. 118) the father unrestricted freedom of distribution of property among his sons during his life- time, while the Mit. expressly says that this power of unequal dis- tribution is restricted to self-acquired property. (2) Vis. ( on श्र. II. 119 )allows a share of property to the widows of predeceased sons and grandsons of a man when a parti- tion takes place during his lifetime. The Mit. restricts the words ° patnyah ’ to the father’s own wives when he effects a partition during his lifetime. ( 3 ) Vis. connects the words ‘ without detriment to the paternal estate’ (in Yaj. II. 122) with the words ‘ whatever else is acquired by himself’ and not with ^ maitra’ ( gifts froma friend ) and ‘ audvahika ’ ( gifts on marriage ), while the Mit. connects the half verse ‘ whatever else is acquired by the man himself without ane 218 1), +| 541 विश्वरूप ०० याह. 1. 155 is तथ। चाम्नायः | तस्माहषेस्यप्ावृतो न बजेत्‌-इति । अयं मे षञ्ज: पध्मानमहृतात्‌-दत्येतदेव मन््रस्य कात्स्म्यम्‌ । यदा AW गच्छेत्‌ तदेवमिति भ्याख्येयम्‌ । , while the गृहस्थरत्नाकर says ‹ अयं मे वन्नः स्व पाप्मानपहन्ति-इति सर्वं मन्त्रं Ts वर्षत्यपावृतो ( ! प्रावृतो ) गच्छेद्‌ यावन्मन््र- समाधिः ऊर्थ्वमनियमः | तादतेवतिष।प्मनोषहतत्वादिति विश्वरूपाचार्यः | ५५ भ्राता वा STAT वा सपिण्डः शिष्य एव च । सपिण्डकक्रियां कत्वा कुयद्‌म्युद्यिकं ततः ॥ इत्यन्न वचने अभ्युदयशब्देन आभ्युद्ाथिकं omg विभागपकरणे विन्यक्पा- चार्येण भ्याख्यतिमू । चतुर्ग ° ( कालानिर्णेय 9. 45 ). | 260 History of Dharmatistra detriment to the paternal estate ’ as a qualifying clause to the next half verse and to another verse ^ kramad abhyagatam &c.’ In the Mit. the two verses ‘ pitrdravyavirodhena &c,’ and ‘ kramad &c.’ occur consecutively, while in Vis. they are separated by three verses and Vis. takes the verse ‘ kramad’ &c. as referring to the re-opening of 2 partition for a son born after partition. ( 4) Vis. allows niyoga only to Sndras in general and to ksatriya kings in case of danger of extinction of line ( vide com. on YAj. Y, 69 and II. 131 ), while Mit. forbids niyoga in general and holds the texts speaking of it as applicable to a girl who is only betrothed and not married. (5) Vi§s. appears to allow one share out of ten to the son of 2 50412 wife from a brahmana without restriction of any kind, while Mit. restricts the share to estates other than land acquired by gift. (6) Vis. interprets the expression ‘ half share’ (in Yaj. II, 138 ) with reference to the illegitimate son of a Sadraas meaning ‘some portion, not necessarily exactly half,’ while Mit. interprets it literally. | (7) Vié. allows a widow to succeed to her husband if she is pregnant at his death, while Mit. allows a widow to succeed without any restriction except that of chastity. (8 ) Vis. restricts the word ‘ duhitarah ’in ‘ patni duhitaras- caiva’’ ( Yaj. IT. 138 ) to putrika only and so does not allow all daughters whatever to succeed, while Mit. does not introduce any such qualification. (9) Vis. reads ‘anyodaryasya sarhsrsti’ for anyodaryastu &c.’ and ‘sodaro ’ for ‘ sarhsrsto ’ in ४2}. II. 143 and his interpretation of the verse is entirely different from that of the Mit. ( 10 ) Vis. reads ‘ adhivedanikarh caiva ° for ‘ adhivedanikadyath ca’ of Mit.and holds that bandbudatta, Sulka and anvadheyaka stridbana of a childless woman goes on her death to her full brother; while Mit. connects these three with the preceding verse and takes the half verse ‘ atitayam ’ as laying down a general rule of succession to stridhana of all kinds and interprets ‘ bandhavah ’ as meaning ° husband and the rest ’. ( 11) Vis. takes the verse ‘ adhivinna-striyai’ &c. (on Yj. 1. 152 )-as applicable to 4 wife superseded without any ground of 60. Vitvartipa 264 supercession allowed by the texts; while Mit. does not introduce any such qualification, As Visvaripa quotes Kumirila’s Slokavartika and is mentioned by the Mit. as an authoritative commentator it follows that he flourished between 750 A. D. and 1000 A. D. A greater approxi- mation as to the date of ViSvarapa can be made, if the identity of Visvaripa with SureSvara be held established. SureSvara, as he himself tells us in the Naiskarmyasiddhi, the Taittiriyopanisadbhasya- vartika and other works, was a pupil of the great SankarAcirya whose generally accepted period is 788-820 A.D. Madhavacarya in several works of his quotes as Visvartipa’s passages from the well- known works of Suresvara. For example, the Parasara-Madhaviya ( vol. 1, part I, p. 57 ) quotes a एकत of SureSvara as that of Visva- rapacarya.543 In the Vivaranaprameyasarhgraha (Vizianagaram series p. 92 )also Madhava quotes a verse from the Brhadaranyakopanisad- bhasya-vartika as ViSvartipa’s.s++ In the Purusarthaprabodhas4s of Brahmananda-bharati (ms. in Bhau Daji collection, Bombay ) composed in 1476 ( probably of the Saka era ) the author speaks of the Naiskarmyasiddhi as a work of Visvaripa. In the Sarhksepa- Sankara-jaya Visvarapa is said to be the author of the two vartikas on Sankara’s bhasya.s46 According to tradition embodied in the various lives of Sakata, the latter had four pupils, Sure$vara, Padma- pada, Totaka and Hastamalaka. Several works mention ViSsvaripa as one of the four pupils and omit the name Suregvara. For example, in the DvadaSa-vikya-vivarana of Gopila ( Aufrecht’s Oxf, cat. No.'s57, p. 227 ४ >) the four pupils of Sankara are named as Visvarapa, Padmanabha, Totaka and Hastamalaka. In the Mana- sollasa-vrttanta-vilasa of Ramatirtha we are expressly told that Sure- 543 इदं च वाक्यं नित्यकृमविषयस्वेन वार्तिके विभ्वरूपाचायं उद्‌।जहार-आश्बे Fee इत्यादि द्यापस्तम्बस्मतेर्बचः । फठवस्वं समाचरे नित्यानामपि कमणाम्‌ ॥ . The 0४९९ of आपद्तम्ब is आप. प, चू. I. 7. 20. 3 and the करिका ocours in the युहृद्‌ारण्यकोपनिषद्‌ भाष्यवार्तिक (1. 1.91). 544 The verse is on p. 640 of the ब॒हद्‌ारण्यकोपनिषदूमाभ्यवातिकि, 6४5 इत्येवं नेष्कम्यैसिद्धौ malaria: । भीमद्िवि्रूपारूभेराचारयेः करुणाणवेः ॥ ( folio 6). 546 इत्थं स उक्तो भगवस्वदेन शीविनश्वङ्यो विदुषां afte: । चकार भा्यद्रयवार्तिके (ते)भाज्ञा गुरूणां सषिचारणीया ॥ संह्ेपशङकरजय 13.68 (Aufrecht’s Oxford Cat p. 257). 469 History of Dharmatistra $vara is another name of Visvardpa, a pupil of Sankara ( vide Mitra’s Notices vol. V, No. 1763, p. 82). In the Saptasutra-sarhnyasapaddhati ( Mitra’s Notices, vol. VI, p. 296 ) the four pupils are said to eb Svariipacarya, Padmacarya, Totaka and Prthvidhara. The Gurv- vathSakavya (Vanivilas ed.) identifies Suresvara and Visvaripa (II.59) and makes him a pupil of Kumarila and Sankara. It may therefore be held as fairly established that Visvarapa and Suregvara are identical, Some corroboration is afforded by the fact that Visvaripa quotes Gaudapada the ^ paramaguru ° of Sankara and holds the same philo- sophical views as those of Sankara. Just as Visvarapa quotes Kumiarila’s Slokavartika, Suregvara also in his Taittiriyopanisad- bhasya-vartika quotes a karika of Kumiérila and styles the latter Mimarhsakarh-manya.547_ This shows that Suresvara treated Kumirila with scant respect, which seems unlikely if he was at any time Kumiarila’s pupil. ViSvaripa in his introduction’¢* performs an obeisance to the Sun, the great serpent (Sega), Tilaksvamin and Vinayaka. The Bhaimati of Vacaspati-misra has a similar salutation. Vacaspati-misra wrote his Nyayasiaci-nibandha in 841-42 A. D.i.e. he was almost a contemporary of Sankara and his pupils. The learned editor of ViS. tells us that in a commentary on Vis. called Vacanamala SureSvara is bracketed with Manu and Yogiévara ( Yajiiavalkya ) as an expounder of Sastra (i.e. dharmasastra ).549 Therefore that commentator looked upon Vis. and Suregvara as identical. From all these several considerations it follows that 547 मोक्षार्थी न प्रवर्तेत तन्न काम्यनिषिद्धयोः । नित्यनमितिके कुर्यास्त्यवायजिहसया ॥ इति मीमांसकमन्येः Sale मोक्षसाधनम्‌ । त. उ. भाष्यवारतिंक्‌ 1, 9-10. The verse मोक्षार्थी &०. 13 श्लोकवार्तिक ( संबन्धाक्षेपपरिद्यार verse 110 ), 548 प्रणम्याकं महानागं तिलकस्वामिनं तथा । विनायकं च सद्रोमिः स्मृतिर्व योत्यते मया ॥ विन्बदप , vide याज्ञ. 1. 289 आदित्यस्य सद्‌! पुजां तिलकस्वामिनस्तथा । महागण- पतेभ्रेव कुर्वन्‌ सिद्धिमवाप्रयात्‌ ॥ . The भामती has मण्डतिलकस्वामिमहागण- पतीन्‌ वयम्‌ । विश्ववन्यानमस्यामः सवंसिदिविधापिनः ॥. तिलकस्वाभी would mean froma: स्वाभी. The मिताक्षरा reads तिलकं स्वामिनस्तथा, &49 अवनम्य मनुसूरेन्वरयोगीश्वरतीवकिरणगुरुचरणान्‌ । शाञ्ञाणां व्याकर्तृम्‌ करतृनपि देवता निसा ॥ One of the versos at the end of the qyqmiet "+ भवमूतिनिबन्धनोद्धौ तिमिमीमपातिवादिके गुरोः । सकटाक्षनिरीक्षणषटवं ( वः! ) पतित ममयमुदुर्ष्यिति ॥, Vide Tri. Cat. of Madras Govt, mss, for 1919-22, pp. 4458-4460 for वचन्‌माल, 60. Vibvartipa | 268 Visvardpa flourished about 800-825 A.D. But this problem presents further difficulties. The mutual relations of Suregvara, Bhavabhati, Umbeka and Mandana are a great puzzle. I have dealt with this question in JBBRAS for 1928, pp. 289-293. The conclusions arrived at there are that Mandana’s literary activity lies between 690-710, that of Umbeka between 700-730 and Suresvara’s between 810-840 A.D. and that Umbeka and Bhavabhtti are identical, but that Mandana and SureSvara are separated by about 100 years. Dr. Jolly has brought together in the Journal of Indian History (vol. III. pp. 1-27) some valuable information about Visvardpa. In several later works a digest called Visvaripa-nibandha is frequently cited. That appears to be the composition of another Visvarapa altogether. For example, the san-navati-sraddha-nirnaya of Sivabhatta ( which is later than 1650 A.D. ) tells us that Visva- ripacarya composed a vivarana (commentary ) on the Sriddha- kalika.ss° The Krtyacintamani of Sivarima (D. ©. No. 221 of 1879 ) quotes severalss! verses from ViSvaripanibandha on Sapinda relation- ship in marriage, which are not found in the Balakrida, but which agree remarkably with the words of the Mit. on Yaj. 1.53. The Varsakriyakaumudi ( pp. 378, 380) mentions Visvarapa-nibandha and quotes two verses cited therein. The Tithi-nirnaya-sarva- samuccaya (later than 1450 A. D. ) quotes certain karikas of Visva- rapa onthe 18 varieties of Ekadasi.s5? The Kalanirnayasiddhanta- vyakhya ( composed in 1653 A.D.) quotes certain verses of Visvaripa on the question of the disposal of food prepared for a marriage when a period of impurity on death supervenes.553 The 550 अत एवोक्तं भ।दकलिकाया--मासिकानि सपिण्डं च अमावास्या तथान्दिकिम्‌ । अनने मैव तु कर्तष्यं यस्य भार्या रजस्वला! ॥ इति । अन्नेनैव कतव्यं न त्वानान्नादिनेति च कलिकाविवरणेपि श्रीमद्धि्वरूप।च।यव्याख्यानम्‌ ॥ Me. in the Bhadkamkar Collection, folio 7 b. 091 विश्यरूपनिबन्धे । एवमुक्तमकारेण gags सप्तमात्‌ । ऊर््वमेव Mad पञ्च माम्मातुबन्धुतः ॥ सम्तानो मिते यस्मासपुवंजादुमयत्न च । तमादाय गणे ( गणेद्‌ ) धीमास्वरं Tata केम्यकाम्‌ ॥ हति । Beal Sa folio 150. The Mit. says ' सन्तानभेदेपि यतः स्षन्तानभेदस्तमादाय गण्येयाषःसप्तम इति WaT योजनीयम्‌ I’, collection folio 19 a 553 Ms. in Bhadkamkar collection folio 19 b on verse 82, $04 History of Dharmasisira Nirnayasindhu also quotes verses of Vigvaripa. From these data it follows that a Visvarapa composed a commentary on Sraddha- kalika and also wrote a digest on matters of acdra and other topics of dharma in prose and verse. Raghunandana in his Udvahatattva ( ed. by Jivananda, p. 116 ) names a ViSvaripa-samuccaya. It is likely that it is the same as ViSvarapa-nibandha. 61. Bharuci. The Mit. on Yaj. (I. 81 ) says that Bharuci like Visvarapa held the view that the rule ‘ rtau bharyarh gacchet ’ wasa niyama and not a parisamkhya. On Yaj. Il 124 the Mit. says that the explana- tion of ‘ the fourth share’ to be given to unmarried sisters offered by Asahaya and Medhatithi was the proper one and not that of Bharuci. The Parasaramadhaviyass+ and the Sarasvativilasa ( para 133 ) inform us that Bharuci was of opinion that unmarried sisters ‘were only entitled to a provision for their marriage and were not entitled to a fourth share. Bharuci, being mentioned by the Mit., is certainly older than 1050 A. D. Raméanujacarya in his Vedarthasarhgraha (reprint from the Pandit, ed. of 1924, p. 154 ) mentions six acaryas that preceded him as expounders of the Visistadvaita system, viz. Bodhayana, Janka, Dramida, Guhadeva, Kapardin and Bhiruci. Similarly the Yatindramatadipikass5 of Srinivisadasa (Anandasrama ed. ) enumerates ( p. 2 ) a host of teachers as the predecessors of Rama- nujacarya in propounding the Visistadvaita system. Vyasa is the reputed author of the Vedantasitras, Bodhayana is said to have com- posed a urtti on the Vedanta-sitras, called nxptakoti according to the Prapatica-hrdaya (p. 39, Trivandrum ed.). Tanka and Brahmanandin are identical. Dramida is credited withthe authorship of a bhasya on the Vedanta-sitras ( which is quoted by Ramanuja in his bhasya on II. 2. 3). Nathamuni is said to have been the grand-father of Yamunamuni, who was born about 916 A.D. Ramanuja refers to him with great reverence as his teacher's teacher ( parama-gurt, vide Vedartha-sarngraha, p. 149 ) and is said to have been young 85८ भािस्तु चतुरधमागपदेन विवाहसंस्कारमाजोपयोगि भ्यं Revered, जतत दाजमाक्रवम- संस्कतकृन्यानां नास्तीति मन्यते । परा. मा, Vol. IIT, %. 7. 510, 555 ‹ च्यास-बोधायन-गुहदेव-मादचि-बह्वनन्दि-द्मिडाचायं-ओीपराहृश्च-लाथमुनि- THC परभृतीने। मतानुसारेण & ०.» 61. Bharuct : 265 when Yamuna died ( र< 1९ ^5 for 1915, p. 147 andI. A. for 1909, p. 129 ). It is therefore obvious that the teachers are arranged by the Yatindramatadipika in chronological order. Hence Bharuci, being placed earlier than even Dramida and Nathamuni, was com- paratively an ancient author and could not have flourished later than the. first half of the gth century. Bharuci the jurist also flourished before 1050. It is difficult to believe that there were two famous writers af the same name nearly about the same time. Hence it may provisionally be held that Bharuci the writer on dharmaéastra and Bharuci the Visistadvaita philosopher are identical. If this identity be accepted, then Bharuci the writer on dharmasastra becomes comparatively an early writer, being at least as old as Visvaripa. His views agree on several points with those of Visva- rapa, which is a circumstance that lends some corroboration to the date proposed for him. One interesting point about Bharuci deserves mention here. From numerous notices contained in the Sarasvativilisa it appears that Bharuci either commented upon the Visnudharmasatra or wrote some work in which he took great pains to incorporate explanations of several sutras of Visnu. For example, para 637 tells us that Bharuci explained the word ‘ प ° occurring in a sitra of Visnu as ‘pinda ’.55° In para 674 we are told that Bharuci explained the word ° niskarana’ in a ऽप्य of Visnu and that he held that a daughter’s son has not to perform the Sraddha of his maternal grand- father if the latter has a son. SudarSanacarya in his comment upon Apastambagrhya ( 8. 21. 2 ) ascribes the same view to Bharuci and quotes the very words of Bharuci.557 Vide J BBR AS for 1925 pp. 210-211 for further examples. There is nothing unnatural in Bharuci, the Visistadvaita philosopher, having composed a commen- 56 gure ERTS यीजशम्द्‌ः पिण्डवाचीति । स. वि, pare 637 ( pp. 422-23 of Mysore 60. ). The stttra of विष्णु 18 € बीजम्रहणानु- विधायम॑शं गृह्णीयात्‌ * स. वि. para 656. 5 अन्न area: | निष्कारणमिति वदता विष्णना समनम्तरकवृणां पुत्रादीनां विथमानतव दहिन्रस्य न कर्तृत्वसंक्रम्तिरिति । स. वि, para 674 (p. 427). The sutra of विष्णु is दोहिश्रस्य भा तामह्शादं निष्कारणम्‌. The words of सुदृरीनाचा्यं are हममेवार्थं area TRE ATH मातामहः पृत्रिकसुतश्चाकिलद्रष्यह्मरी alee तस्य पिण्डदाननियमः इत्यादिना मन्थेन | ४, 2, 34 266 History of Dharmatastra tary on the Visnudharmasitra. The extant Visnudharmasotra contains doctrines peculiar to the Visistadvaita system such as the worship of Narayana or Vasudeva, the four Vyahas of Vasudeva &c. If Bharuci was a Visistadvaitin he would naturally turn to the आप्र of Visnu as having the greatest claim on his attention. Many of the आऽ of Visnu quoted in the Sarasvativilasa with the explana- tions of Bharuci are not found in the printed text of Visnu, on which Nandapandita commented in the first half of «he 17th century. It appears that the Sarasvativilasa had before it a larger version of Visnu current in the south ( vide note 118, p. 70 above ). On scores of points there is divergence between the views of Bharuci and those of the Mit. Bhiaruci differed from the Mit. as to the definition of daya and vibhaga, he allowed niyoga to childless widows, while the Mit. condemned it in the case of all widows ; Bharuci, like Visvaripa, did not mention sapratibandha and aprati- bandha daya; Bharuci, like Visvaripa, held that a coparcener who concealed some joint property was not guilty of theft, while the Mit. held that he was. Vide ] BB RAS for 1925 pp. 211-13 for more examples and details. 62, Srikara The Mit. on Yaj. 1. 135 alludes to the tiew of Srikara and others that the widow succeeded as heir to her deceased husband’s estate if it was अभा. The Smptisarass59 of Harinatha attributes the same view to Srikara and disapproves of it. On Yj. II. 169 the Mit.5¢° cites the view of Srikara about that topic and dis- approves of it. Visvarapa also gives two explanations of that verse of Yaj., the first of which agrees with that of the Mit. and the second is akin to Srikara’s. 588 एतेनाल्पधनदिषयत्वं श्रीकरादिमिश्कं निरस्तं वेदितश्यम्‌ । 659 न च स्वर्पयकत्वे ( धनप्वे 1 ) पत्नी इुहितर इति बहुधनत्वे भरातृणामपजा इति वचन- ma श्रीकरमतमुचितम्‌ i स्मृतिसार्‌ I. 0, cat. No. 301, folio 1988. | $00 अधाविदितदेशान्तरं गतः कालान्तरे बा विपन्नस्तदा भंलमाईरणाशक्तेषिकरतारमदशै- Rake स्वयमेव तद्धनं ater समर्पयेत्‌ । तावतेवासौ wa भवतीति views , ध्याख्यातं तदिद्मनुषपन्नम्‌। मिताक्षरा, thea, वि, Pp. 907 ( Mysore ed. ) quoter these very words ‘| अथािदित सम्षयेदिति Heteupies orig: | विज्नानेश्वरस्तु &०. ’ ‘wa 69, Srikara 267 The works of Jimttavahana ( viz. the Dayabhaga and the Vyava- haramatrka ), the Smrticandrika and the Sarasvativilasa contain very interesting notices of Srikara’s views. Many of them were brought together by me in ] B BRAS for 1925, pp. 213-215. Srikara like Visvaripa held the view that ‘duhitarah’ in Yaj. refers to the putrika, he allowedthe parents of a childless person to succeed together at the same time. The Dayabhiga very severely criticizes the views of Srikara on the succession to re-united members, on vidyadhana and on Yaj. Il. 24 ( about enjoyment for 20 years ).5¢ Most of the views attributed to Srikara were also entertained by Visvaripa or are more antiquated than Viévartpa’s. Srikara was probably a writer from Mithila and seems to have propounded the view of spiritual benefit as the criterion for judging superior rights of succession. The Smptisaras®? of Harinatha ascribes such a view to a Srikara-nibandha. Whether Srikava wrote acommentary on a smrti or a general digest ( nibandha ) it is difficult to say. The Smrticandrikas®s says that Sambhu, Srikara and Devasvamin compiled digests of smrtis and added their own explanations of them. The Smrtyarthasara‘* of Sridhara asserts in the introductory verses that Srikantha and Srikaracarya filled up the gaps in the smrtis that were scattered about ( by introducing order out of chaos ). Srikara’s explanations of Yajfiavalkya are frequently cited by the Mit., the Dayabhaga and A a ROOT, L$ णर रिणी 561 Vide ब्यवहारतत्वं . 47 where श्रीकर्‌ is the first of a host of writers who held, following Y&j. II. 24, that adverse possession for twenty and ten years in the case of immoveable and moveable property respectively conferred ownership. 562 Vide THAT (1.0, cat. No. 301, folio 147 a ) मृतसन्तानाभावे तवितसन्तते- war सद्भावे च तव्पितामहसन्ततेः . . . इति श्रयाणामदकं कार्यमित्यादिना दार्शेतम्‌ । एतदृष्वं श्रयाणामपि जन्यजनककरमेणेव पूर्ववत्संनिधानाद्थमाहिनिनि सगिण्डःमवि सकुल्यानां धनमागितेति अनन्तरः HATS इत्या दना दशितम्‌ | 69 ये पुनः स्मृतिसमुच्चयकाराः शम्मुशौकरदेवस्वाम्याद्यः सं“नयुद रदिषम वेम गयं : शिष्टाचारं मन्यमाना उद्‌ ादिविषयाणि स्मतिवाक्यान विचार्गयतं म्रश्थ.व त र = HT स्मरति ° ( ध्यु 9 section p. 206}, | 564 भीकण्दश्चीकराचार्यः भुतिस्प्रतिपुराणगेः । स्मतिशाज्ञेष्वनेकेषु विमकीर्णेष्वनेकध। | अनु- STATES Rat भयत्नलः । पुराणन्यायमीमांसासाद्गवेदः पूरितम्‌ ॥ स्ृत्यथ- सार( D. 0. ms. No. 44 of 1870-71 copied in सवत्‌ 1495 bas these verses ), 268 History of Dharmaéastra others. But the Mit. does not connect Srikara’s name with Yajnavalkya as a commentator, though Visvarapa is expressly so connected. It appears therefore more likely that Srikara wrote a digest of smrtis in which he paid particular attention to the expla- nation of the words of Yajfiavalkya. The Rajanitiratnakaras®s of Candesvara quotes the views of Srikara on rajaniti, one of which is that the poor and helpless are entitled to a share of the royal wealth. Hemadris® quotes the view of Srikara on Visnu and disapproves of the faults found therein by the author of the Pandita-paritosa. As Srikara is quoted by the Mit., he is certainly earlier than 1050 A.D. As his views agree largely with Visvartpa’s, he may provi- sionally be regarded as nearly of the same period as Visvardipa’s. He cannot be earlier than Asahaya who is named both by Visvarapa and Medhatithi, though both of them are silent about Srikara. Hence Srikara must be placed somewhere between 800 and 1050 A. D. and probably flourished in the 9th century. This Srikara must be distinguished from another Srikara, the father of Srinatha. 63. Medhatithi. Medhatithi is the author of an extensive and erudite commentary ( bhasya ) on the Manusmrti. It is the oldest extant commentary on that smrti. The bhasya of Medhatithi was first published about forty years ago by Rao Saheb V. N. Mandlik in Bombay and recent- ly Mr. J. R. Gharpure of Bombay brought out an edition of Medhatithi which closely follows Mandlik’s edition. A critical edition of the bhasya based upon all the available Mss. is a great desideratum. An English translation of the bhasya by M. M. Dr. Gan- ganath Jha is in progress and several parts have veen published so far. In the following Mr. Gharpure’s edition has been used. The bhasya as printed is corrupt in many places, particularly in the 8th, 9th and 565 ‹ राजधने दीनानाधादिसिकलप्राणिनामंरित्वं बहूनायकत्वाद्राज्यिना्षश्योति युक्तिरिति गापाललक्ष्मधिरश्रीकरादयः । ` राजनीतिरत्नाकर्‌ PP. 40-41 ( ed. by Jayasval ). 566 अत्र श्रीकरः प्राह । यदा गतकाले अमावास्याद्वयं मवति तदा मिधुनादिररेष्वाषाढी- भावात्‌ । . . , AAT पण्डितपरितोषरूता दुषणममिदितम्‌ । अनुपपन्नरमेतत्‌ । . , ° तेन श्रीकराणां मतमेव साधु । चतुर्वर्ग ० 171. 2 pp. 900-908, 64. Medhititht 268 12th adhyayas In Mr. Gharpure’s edition there is no bhasya on verses 182-202 of the 9th chapter. Buhler in his learned and exhaustive Introduction to the Manu- smrti ( ऽ. B. E. vol. 25 ) brings together a good deal of information about Medhatithi ( pp. cxvii-cxxv1 .). In JBBRAS for 1925 pp. 217-221 I have offered criticisms on some of Bihler’s views and have given certain additional information. In several Mss. of the bhasya at the end of several adhyayas occurs a 67565५7 which says that a king named Madana, son of Saharana, brought copies of Medhatithi’s commentary from another country and effected a restoration (jiruoddhara). This does not refer to the restoration of the text of Medhatithi, but to the completion of the library of the king, who was Madanapila, son of Sadharana and flourished, as we shall see later on, in the latter half of the 14th century. Dr. Jolly ( Tagore Law Lectures p. 6 ) holds Medhatithi to be a southerner on account of the fact that his father’s name was Vira- svamin and on account of the attention paid to his bhasya by southern writers. It cannot be said that names ending in ‘ svamin’ were a monopoly of the south. The Rajataratigini gives several literary celebrities whose namcs ended in ‘ svamin’ ( €. £. V. 34 mentions a Sivasvami ). Ksirasvimin was a Kishmirian. The south has always been famed for preserving Mss. of valuable works from the north. Mss. of the Kavyalarnkara of Bhamaha, a Kaishmirian, are very rare and have been found only in the south. Buhler ( p. (ष्मा ) seems to be right in holding that Medhatithi was a Kashmirian ( or at least an inhabitant of Northern India). In explaining such words as ‘svarastre ’ and ‘ janapadah’ ( Manu VII. 32 and VIII. 42 ) Medhatithi introduces Kashmir. He gives ( on Manu VIII. 400 ) the monopoly of the sale of elephants as a pri- vilege of the kings of Kashmir where saffron abounds.5** He says 59 मान्या कापि भनुरमतिस्तदु्िता व्याख्या Fae सा wae विधेवेशात्‌ wae ey न यत्युस्तकम्‌ । क्षोणीन्द्वो मदनः सहारणसुतो देशान्तराद्‌ाहृतर्मीणि दारमची- करसत इतस्ततपुस्तकरसिते ॥ सहारण 182 Prakrit form of साधारण 208 यानि भाण्डानि राजोपयोगितया यथा हस्तिनः काश्मीरेषु कुङ्कमपरायेषु Tz प्रतीष्येष्वन्वा दृक्षिणत्येषु मणिपुक्तादीनि &c. Should we not read यथा हस्तिनः काश्मीरे SEA ISAT वटोणद्नि 9 The meaning then would be elephants are the monopoly of kings everywhere, saffron in Kashmir &o, 270 History of Dharmaéastra that the rainbow is called ‘ vijfiana-chaya ` in Kashmir ( on Manu IV. 59). He very frequently refers to northerners €. g. on Manu III. 234 he says ‘ kutapa ° is the word for what is well-known as ‘kambala’ among northern people and on III: 238 he says ‘northern people wrap their heads with Satakas’ (garments ), He says on Manu II, 24 that in the Himalayas in Kashmir it is not possible to perform the daily sashdhya in the open nor is it possible to bathe every day in a river in ‘ Hemanta’ and ‘Sigira’. On Manu II. 18 he says ‘ in other countries, some say, people marry one’s maternal uncle’s daughter ; but that is opposed to the words of Gautama’ ( 4. 3 ) and proceeds ‘ even in that country taking food in the same plate with (or in the company of ) one whose thread ceremony is not performed is not at all regarded as dharma ( but as improper conduct )’. This is clearly a reference 10 Baudha- yana Dh. S. (I. 1. 19 ) according to which ‘ matulasut4-parinayana’ and taking food in the same plate with one whose upanayana is not performed are two of the five usages peculiar to the south. It is fair to add that later writers like Kamalakarabhatta (Nirnayasindhu, 3rd pariccheda on sapindya ) regard Medhatithi as a southerner. Mcdhatithi quotes from or names numerous smrti writers, such as Gautama, Baudhayana, Apastamba, Vasistha, Visnu, Sankha, Manu, Yaj., Narada, Parasara, Brhaspati, Katyayana and others. He refers to Brhaspati as a writer on ^ varta’ ( Manu VII. 43 and IX. 326 ) and to Brhaspati and Uéganas as writers on politics and govern- ment ( Manu VIII 285, VII. 2 and 155 ). On Manu VII. 43 he refers to Canakya as a writer on ‘ dandaniti’. %In numerous places he seems to have drawn upon Kautilya’s work. For example, on Manu VII. 155 in interpreting ‘ paficavarga’ as ^ kapatika, udasthita, grhapatika, vaidehika and tipasavyanjana’ he explains them almost in the words of Kautilya (I. 2). On VII. 148 he quotes the five angas of mantra in the very words of Kautilya.s69 Vide also his remarks on Manu VII. 54 ( testing of ministers by upadhas). He names Asahaya ( on 8. 156 ) and certain writers as Smrtivivarana- karah (on II. 25 ). Buhler is not -quite accurate ( p. Cxx,n. 1 ) when he states that ‘ Medhatithi gives only once the name of an a देशकालमिमागः विनिपातप्रतीकारः काय- fen । मेधातिथि , compare कोटिल्य 1.15 + कर्मणामादम्मोपावः ... का्- धिरित Tag मन्वरः ' |, 68. Medhitith: ` $71 early commentator’. On VIII. 3 he refers to the interpretations of Bhartryajfia. He refers to the interpretations of Yajvan (on VII. 751 20 156). Yajvan is only the last part of a name( as in Deva- rajayajvan ). He quotes the interpretation of Manu by Upadhyaya ( on Il. 109, IV. 162, V. 43, IX. 141 and 147). Buhler holds that Medhatithi refers to his own teacher. It is more likely that Upadhyaya , like Yajvan, is the name or part of the name of a previous commentator of Manu. On VIII. 152 the explanations of Rju are twice cited. On IX. 253 Medhatithi cites the view of one Visnusvamin.57° From the tenor of the quotation it appears that Visnusvamin was a writer on Mimatisa and not a commentator of Manu as Biher thought ( p.cxx,n. 1). Some Mss. read the word preceding Visnusvami as ‘kovara’, others as ‘kavara’. It is probably ^ kavera’ ( residing on the Kaveri river ) He quotes (on Manu I. 19 ) a verse from the Sankhyakarika ( ‘prakrter mahan &c ). He speaks of Vindhyavasas7' as a Sankhya and says that he १०८३ not ‘dmit a subtle interim body (antarabhava- deha ). This is probably taken from Kumarila’s words.572_ He repeatedly refers to the purdayas, tells us (on III. 232) that they were composed by Vyasa and contained accounts of creation. He quotes (on XII. 118 ) a verse from the Vikyapradipa.573 He tells us( on II. 6 ) that the Paficaratras, Nirgranthas ( Jains ) and Pasupatas were outside the pale of Vedic orthodoxy.57+ Medhatithi had drunk deep at the fountain of the Parva- mimamsa. His bhasya is full of the terms vidiit and arthavada. He quotes Jaimini’s sitras frequently and applies them to the inter- pretation of smrti texts at every step. Vide JBBRAS for 1925 ए. 219 for examples. He cites passages from Sabara’s bhasya ( 6. g. on 1. 1 2). He mentions Kuméarila by name (on I. 3) and as Bhattapada ( on Manu II. 18 ). 570 अतो यावती काचित्कलश्चतिः सा सर्वाथंवादु इति कोवरविष्णास्वामी | 71 सांख्या हि केचिन्ञान्तराभवानिष्छन्ति विन्ध्यवासपभतयः । मेधातिथि on मनु 1. 5, O72 अभ्तरामरवदे्तु निषि विश््यवासिना । भ्लोकवार्तिक ए. 704. 613 उक्तं च वाक्यप्रदीपे-न तदस्ति च varity इत्यादि | Dr. Kielhorn told Dr. Bubler that the verse is not foundin the qyqydiq of हरि (8. 8, E. vol, 26, CXXIII. 2.1) 9५ एवं सवं एव बाह्या मोजकपाश्चराधिकनिमन्थानार्थवादपशिपतपमृकयः । 272 - +. निनय of Dharmatistra Buhler at ‘first took the remark (on Manu XII. 19) about < Sariraka ’ 2557; referring to Sankara’s bhasya on the Vedantasatra, but later on changed his opinion (S BE vol. 25, p. cxxm ) and held that it probably impliesa reference to the Sariraka sitras. Bahler’s considered opinion does not seem to be right. The words ° yatheha raja... apaiti’ area summary of Sankara’s bhasya on Vedantasatra II. 1. 34 and II. 3. 42. and I. 2. rr-12. On Manu II. 83 he refers to the Upanisad-bhasyas7* on Chandogya II. 23. 4 and says that that passage has been differently explained in the bhasya. Sankara does explain that passage of the Chandogya differ- ently. But this is not all. In various other places Medhatithi seems to have in view the Sarirakbhisya of Sankara. For example, on I. 80 he has 577 before him Sankara’s bhasya on the sitra ‘lokavat tu lilakaivalyam ' ( Vedantasatra II. 1. 33). He, however, seems to have favoured the position that the attainment of moksa is पप्र? not to mere correct knowledge but to the combination (samuccaya ) of knowledge and karma ( vide remarkg, on Manu VI. 32, 74-75, 575 ननु च धर्माधर्मयोरिच्छां परति नियन्तृत्वे Sas ह्रीयते । तथा ais ait यथेह राजा सेवानुरूपं ददाति न च तस्येभ्बरत्वमपोति अतो महत्यरमात्मानी पश्यत इति व्यपदिश्यते । 576 उपनिषद्धाष्ये चेतदुन्यथा व्यःख्यातं तच्तिहानुषयागान्न प्रदूदित्‌। मेधातिथि. The उपनिषद्‌ passage 8 ‹ तद्यथा शङ्कुना सवोणि पत्राणि संत्ण्णानि THIET Tal वाक्‌ संत्ण्णा १, मेधातिथे explains + सर्वो दर्यो वाग्न्यवहयरान्तीतो वाचश्च सर्वस्या ओङ्कारो FoI । तथ। च श्रुतिः ॥ तयथ। EA &०. ... अन्त्यानमनुस्मृतिशश्रय- ` भावाप्तिव । कथं पुनः सर्वा वागोङ्कारेण संत॒ण्णा । वेदिक्यास्तावदोङ्कःरपुवंकतमुक्तम्‌। लौकिक्या अपि तदादौीनि वाक्यानि स्य॒रिस्यापस्तम्बवचनात्‌ । ' . शङ्करा चाये explains " यथा MET पणनेन सर्वाणि पर्णानि पणोवयवजातानि संतृण्णानि विद्वान व्याप नीत्यर्थः | एवमेोङ्कारेण बह्मण। परमात्मनः परतीकभूतेन wal वाक्‌ शब्दजातं संतृण्णा | अकारो वा सवो वागित्यादिशुतेः । . 577 लीलयापि कोतुकेनापि लोके राजादीनां मवृ्तिदश्यत इति mesa: । Rete, "यथा लोके कस्यचिदापेषणस्य राज्ञा ... टीरारूप।ः प्रवृत्तयो मवन्ति ' शाङ्करभाष्य. 678 On 1. 50 ° says ‹ परबह्लावापिस्तु मोक्षलक्षणा केवलानन्द्रूपा HA ज्ञानकमे- PASTAS व्यामः । ‰ ०० मनु VI 4-75 ° इदं तु ज्ञानकर्मणोः समुच्चयान्मोक्ष इति" श्क्यं ज्ञापकम्‌ । 5 on XII. 87 Haw बह्यनिह्ठापरेणापिं वेदाभ्यासा- ` Berge । 68, Medhatsthi 273 and XII. 87-90 ). This was probably due, as Kullika remarkss79 ( on I. 3 ), to his being a profound student of Mimarhsa. From Medhatithi’s bhasya it is perfectly clear that the text of Manu on which he commented was practically the same that we have now. He refers to ancient ( ciratitana ) expositors of Manu (on V. 127 ) and to former ( parva ) expositors (IV. 176, Il. 134, X.21 ). He discusses various readings in several places ( vide III. 119, IV. 99, 185, 229, VIII. 53 ). On VIII. 182-183 he 7065585 that the order of the verses was traditionally different. Kullaka also notices that those two verses and the next two were read in one order by Medhatithi and Bhojadeva and in another by Govinda- raja. On 9. 93 he notes that according to some that verse is not Manus. 58: Medhatithi’s bhasya is full of very interesting information. But for want of space it cannot be analysed in detail. The Mit. (on रत). II. 124) refers to the view of Asahaya and Medhatithi (on Manu 9. 118 ) about the fourth share to be given toan unmarried sister at a partition between brothers and follows it in preference to Bharuci's, On Yaj. III. 24 the Mit. tells us that certain texts of Rsyasrnga about varying periods of impurity for Brahmanas and others were not accepted as authoritative by Dharesvara, Visvartiipa and Medhatithi. According to hims®? saiinyasa does not mean the giving up of all the obligatory dutics laid down by sdsira, but the giving of abamkara. He 583 allowed a brahmana to adopt even a ksatriya boy. He explains away the well-known verse ‘naste mrte... patiranyo vidhiyate’ by 79 मेधातियिस्तु कममीमांसावासनय वेदस्य कायमेव तत्त्वरूपोधंस्तं वेत्तीति कायेतत्वा्थाषीदीति व्याचष्ठे 1, 580 The verses are यो निक्षेपं याच्यमानः & ०. and साक्ष्यभावे &५. मेधातिभि says on the first ध्यत्यस्त॒क्रमोयं sales समाम्नाये Geqa । प्रथमस्याषेश्तोकं पठित्वा Teg इति पठितन्यम्‌ । ततः स यास्य इति । एवं पाठो युक्तः | 581 केचिदाहुरमानवोयं श्लोक % अथाप्युख्येत कर्मसंन्यासिनो निवृत्तिमा्गावस्थायिनो नेव केजिच्छश्चार्थविधयः सन्ति । नायं sere: । अहंकारममक्छारत्याग एव संन्थासो वक्ष्यते नाकरेषशाश्चार्थत्यागः मेधा० on मनु VI. 38 8 सदशं न क्ञातितः कि तं कुलानुरूपेशुणेः क्षभिथादिरापि आष्वणस्य दको युश्यते । मेधा० on भनु 9. 168 ° D. ॐ 274. History of Dharmastastra taking the word ‘pati’ in its etymological sense and sayss® that the verse suggests that in order to maintain herself in such calamities the woman may take service with another person as her protector Medhatithi quotes several verses from his own work called Smrtiviveka on Manu II. 6 ( in all 24 verses })and on X. 5. he says that he has dealt with the topic of mixed castes in Smrtiviveka. That work therefore was either entirely in verse or contained numerous verses. The Parasara-Madhaviya (vol. I, part 2, pp. 183- 186 ) has a long quotation in verse on the duties of yatis from a work called Smrtiviveka and the same work several times quotes verses attributed to Medhatithi ( vol. I. part I p. 276 and part 2 pe 172 ). Hence the Smptiviveka cited by the Parasara-Madhaviya most probably is Medhatithi’s work. Lollatas*s an early writer quotes several verses of Medhatithi in his work on Sraddha. In the Tithinirnaya-sarvasamuccaya ( Bhadkamkar collection ) several verses of Medhatithi on obstacles to marriage such as death are quoted.5®° In the Yatidharmasarngraha of ViSvesvara-sarasvati ( Anandasrama ed. p. 27 ) two well-known verses about ‘ asfanga- matthuna’ ( viz. smaranam kirtanam kelib &c. >) are ascribed to Medhatithi and another verse‘*’ is cited (on the same page ) about the six duties of yatis. These quotations show that Medhatithi 68५ तन्न पालनात्पतिमन्यमाश्रयेत सेरन्भकमंदिनात्मवृतत्यथम्‌ | मेधा० ० मनु, 5. 156, 585 वुञ्नामावे सपिण्डा मानुसपिण्डाः शिष्याश्च द्युः, तदमावे ऋष्विगाचायोषिति मेधातिथि स्मरणात्‌ | (folio db of the ms. of श्रटुप्रकरण by Biweray in the आबन्दा- भरम 10275 at Poona); जाताशोमृताशोषविषये त्वाह मेधातिथिः । पादपरक्षालमे MS स्वनलस्थापनं कतौ | मधुपके विवाहे वे आशोचेष्यर्वंमाचरेत्‌ | ( १४१०. folio 109). 686 quad घटिते Bra वरस्य गेहेण्यथ कन्वकायाः | मृत्युर्यदि स्याम्भनुजस्य चत्त- ( fat art दुयात्टु जातमङ्गलम्‌॥ ( ?०11 45 »); वाम्दानानन्तरं यन्न कुलयोः weal yeaa: | तद्‌ संवत्सरादूर्ध्वं विवाहः शभदो भवेत्‌ ॥ ( ०11० 468); चि च धतबश्धे च विवाहे अतकर्मणि । मार्या रजस्वला यस्य प्रायस्तस्य च (न ! ) शोभनम्‌ ॥ (folio 47 ® ) ; पृथग्मात॒जयोः कायो विवाहुस्तवेकवासरे | एकष्मिम्मण्डपे चेव पृथन्वे- दिकयोस्तथा ॥ ( {0110 51 8). The first two verses occur in गदाधर 8 come mentary on the पार्स्करगृह्य ० the last three are cited in the ecalati- भाणे Of शिवराम { D. ©. ms No. 221 of 1179-80, folios 54 b, 55a, 56 b. ) 587 भिक्षाटनं जपो भ्यानं स्नानं शचं THAT । कतभ्थानि Ras. afte FTTH ॥ अतिधमसंब्ह, 68, (१, , / | अह wrote an extensive work in verse on several topics of dharma. It is to be fervently hoped that this work of Medhatithi would be brought to light some day or other. Coming as it does from such an crudite and ancient writer, it would throw a flood of light on the development of dharmasastra. As Medhatithi names Asahaya and Kumirila and most probably quotes the views of Sankaracarya, he is later than 820 A.D. As the Mit. looked upon him as an authoritative writer, he must be earlier than 1050 A.D. Most probably he flourished between 825 and 900 A.D. Kullakas®® on Manu III. 127 says that Medhatithi is much earlier than Govindaraja ( 1050-1100 A. D.). [नाभ is mentioned as a predecessor in the Smrtyartha-sara of Sridhara, which was composed between 1150-1200 A.D. So Lollata is much earlier than 1150 A.D. He looked upon Medhiatithi as a writer whose work was as authoritative as a smrti. A work called Prakasas*9 which is quoted in the Kalpataru appears to have mentioned Medhatjthi. Hemadri quotes at great length Medhatithi’s comments in several places.s%° Hence the above date is amply corroborated. Thisconclusion is further strengthened by the fact that, though he names Asahaya, he does not mention Visvardpa, Bharuci or Srikara. If by Misras9* in his comment on Manu XII. 118 he refers to Vacaspati-migra, the author of the Bhamati and other works, then he will have to be placed after 850 A. D. 64, Dharesvara Bhojadeva. The Mit. ( on Yaj. II. 135) says that Dharesvara tries to recon- cile the conflicting texts about the right of the widow to succeed to her husband's estate by saying that she succeeded if her husband was separate and if she was willing to submit to niyoga. On the same verse the Mit. says that following Manu 9. 217 Dhareésvara placed the paternal grand-mother immediately after the mother as an heir and even before the father. On Ya4j. III. 24 the Mit. says that certain texts of Rsyasriga about impurity on death were not 588 मेध।तिधिप्रमुतिमिर्गोषिन्द्राजादपि बटूतररनभ्युपेतलवात्‌ ॥ 589 Vide note 185. 590 Vide चतुवर्ण° IIT, 1. 1062-63 where मेपातिधि8 comment on मनु IIT. 265 is cited. 591 परमाणाम्तराणामपि एकलतवमतिपाद्नपरतादेव भाहिणः प्रत्यक्षस्य मिभः रत एव pT 276 History .of Dharmatistra accepted as authoritative by DhareSvara, Visvaripa and Medhatithi. Vide (sec. 60 on Visvariipa) about the remarks of the Smrticandrika on Dharegvara and Visvaropa. ‘The Haralatas9? (p.117) remarks (as ` does the Mit. on Yaj. III. 24 ) that Bhojadeva, Visvara pa, Govindaraja, and the Kamadhenu did not cite certain texts as Jatukarna’s and that therefore they were not authoritative. That Dharesvara is to be identified with Bhojadeva of Dhara, ` perhaps the most famous Indian prince as a patron of learned men, follows from several considerations. The Dayabhigas93 cites Bhoja- .deva and Dharegvara without making any distinction between the two. Some views that are ascribed to Dharegvara in one work are ascribed to Bhojadeva in another. The Vivadatandava of Kamalakara ascribes to Bhojadeva the same views as to the widow’s rights as are ascribed to Dhireévara by the Mit. Mss. of the Rajamartanda (commentary on the Yogasttras) have colophons saying that the work was composed by Dharesvara Bhojaraja. Dharesvara is styled acarya by the Mit. (on Yaj. II. 24) and sari by the Smrticandrika (II p- 257). Works on numerous branches of knowledge were composed by (or in the name of) Bhoja of Dhara. On poetics we have twe extensive works of his, viz. the Sarasvatikanthabharana and the Srhgaraprakasa. A verse at thes9+ beginning of the Rajamartanda tells us that Bhoja composed a work on grammar, a commentary on the Yogasiitra and a work on medicine called Rajamrganka just as Pataiijali wrote on these three subjects ( vide Mitra’s Notices of Mss, vol. I, p. 115 for the medical work of Bhoja called Rajamartanda alias Yogasara). He composed a work on astronomy called Rajamrganka. A work of his on the Saiva agama called Tattva- prakasa has been published in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series. There are several other works ascribed to him, which need not be 592 यानि जातूकणनाम्ना वचनानि लिखितानि AN मोजदेव-विन्वरूप-गोविन्द्राजः क।म- धेनुरुद्रिरलिसितस्वान्मतस्यपुराणविरोध।च्च निमूान्येव | 593 दायभाग (7. 53, ed. of 1829) ‘ अयं वा धरेण्बरपुरस्रतो वचनार्थः | FSA विभाग- दानपरवृत्तस्य पितुः पतामहधने सदशं स्वाम्बं पुत्रैः सह न तत्न स्वोपाजितधन इव ग्यूना- धिकविमागमिच्छातः कर्तुमहंतीति । °; द्‌ायभाग (2. 280) ˆ अत एव भोजदेवेनापि SUSI CUBR ब॒हस्यतिरिप्यमिधाय यथा पितृधने स्वम्यामति वचनं लिसिनम्‌ । 59५ शब्दानामनुशासनं दिद्धता पातजलठे कुर्वता वृत्ति राजमृगाह्कसज्ञकमपि व्यातन्वता वैयके । वाक्चेतोवपुषां मलः; फणभृतां भर्व येनोद्धतस्तस्य भ्रीरणरङ्गमह्कनूपतेर्वाचो जयन्त्यज्ज्वलाः ॥ Intro. 4th verse. 64, Dhiretvara Bhojadeva 277 set out here. That he composed an extensive work on the principal subjects of dharmasastra follows from the numerous references to him contained in the Mit., the Dayabhaga, the Haralata and other works, The Suddhi-kaumudis9s ( B. I. edition ) of Govindananda frequently speaks of a work called Rajamartanda of Bhoja on sraddha. The Jayasithha-kalpadruma ( p. 26 ) quotes Rajmartanda and Bhoja- rajiya on the same page. Whether Bhoja composed on Dharma- astra one work or two (as he composed two on poetics ), and whether his work was a commentary or an independent digest it is difficult to say. M. M. HaraprasadaSastri in one of his reports threw out the suggestion that the Kamadhenu was the work of Bhoja, but this is entirely wrong, as the words of Sridatta in his Pitrbhaktis9® will show. Besides the two points noted above (about widow's rights and about the grandmother ), there are others on which the Mit. and Dharesvara disagreed : viz. Dhare$vara held ownership to be known only from sastra, while the Mit. held it to be laukika ( vide Viramitro- daya pp. 528, 536); Dharesvara held that the word ‘duhitarah’ in, in Yaj. stands for putrika in the order of succession ( Smpti-candrika 1. p. 295-96). On other points the views of Dharesvara coincide with those of the Mit., viz. on the usage of giving a special share to the eldest son having fallen into desuetude, on the daughter’s son’s right to succession, on the father’s inability to give a greater or smaller share to his sons in ancestral property on a partition during his life-time. Vide my article on Bhojadeva in JBBRAS for 1925 pp. 223-224 for details of these and other views ascribed to Bhoja- deva. A few other references may be noted here. The Nirnaya- mrtas97 ( p. 68 ) quotes a Bhojarajiya text. Inthe Kalaviveka of 595 अत एव राजमार्तण्डे मोजराजः-भ्ा ट विप्रे समुत्पन्ने मृतस्या्िदिते दिने । अमावास्यां प्रकवीति वदन्त्येके मनीषिणः ॥ ए. 18. Vide also the भाटुक्रियाकोमुदी p. 480 for the same verse from the राजमातेण्ड, Which is perhaps more frequent- ly quoted by गोषिन्दानन्द than any other nibandha. 596 तदेतानि वाक्यानि राह्ञालिसितत्वान्ादेयानीति केचित्‌ । तदयुक्तं wre राज- मिवम्धवच्छिषटपरिपहात्सं शयं नाहभ्तीति बेत्‌, न राजालिखितत्वस्यादशेनेनाप्युपपततेः | न हि यावन्ति स्मतिवाक्यानि तावन्ति सर्वाण्येव रज्ञा Certs प्रमाणमस्ति । पितृभा ( folio 38 of the D. 0, ms No. 153 of 1892-95 ). 9 यन्तु मोजराजीयं- न दिवा न निशासु च विशता न च स्मीशल्यसमोपहतोति । इं सममशिल्यनिषेधपरम्‌ । निरणथामृत, ‘978 | History of Dharmatielra Jimatavahana two verses about taking food at the time of eclipses are cited from Bhojadeva ( 7. 539). In several works certain views are stated to be those of a Bhapalapaddhati or of Bhapala or of Raja. The reference seems to be to a work of king Bhoja. For example, in the Danaratnakara a Bhapala-paddhati and Bhapala are frequently quoted.59® The Samayapradipas99 and Acaradarsa of Sridatta speak of both Bhapala and Raja. In other works also the views of Bhoja are often referred to as those of Raja(the king par excellence). For example, the Ekavali‘ee ( a work on Poetics) says that in the Srigara-prakasa the king accepted only one rasa. The Varsakau- mudi ( p. 107 ) says that a certain verse is cited by the Gangavakya- vali without naming the author, but as it is not cited by the Raja and the rest, it is unauthoritative. The several tattvas of Raghunandana mention two works of Bhojadeva or Bhojaraja. For example, the Tithitattva ( Jivananda vol. I, p. 17) cites a text as quoted in the Bhujabalabhima by Bhojaraja ; similarly in the Sraddhatattva, ( Jivananda vol. I, p. 266) ॐ two texts are cited as quoted qy Bhojadeva in Bhujabalabhima. Raghunandana also mentions Rajamartanda of Bhojaraja ( vide Ahnikatattva, vol. I, p. 451). He often cites the Rajamartanda and the Bhujabalabhima on the same page without the author's name (e.g. vide Udvahatattva, vol. II, 2. 124). Raghunandana often speaks of a Brhad-Rajamartagda along with the Rajamartanda on the same or the next page (vide Tithitattva, vol. I, pp. 25-26 and Jyotistattva pp. 605 and p. 655 ). That the Bhujabalabhima and the Rajamartanda are two different works appears to be clear. Whether the Brhad-Rajamartanda and the Rajamartanda are distinct works is not quite clear. ( Vide Tri. Cat. of Madras Govt. mss, for 96.पदमसनगतासतददर्‌ AMMO | कोकपालान्सरताश्च स्ववाहनसमग्वितान्‌ ॥ इति श्कोकार्धपाद्‌) भूपालपदतियोगीन्बरयोदष्टः । दानरलनाकर ( 2. 0. ms. No, 11“ of 1884-86 ) folio ३4 b; vide folios 19a, 28a, 29a, 50 9 for AMS. 99 तदेवं गोडीयवषनानि ममाणयतां तदुनुसरेण भ्यषस्थोक्ता । भूयालादिमते तु समन्य कादुश्योवांचनिकी व्यवस्था तिथ्यन्तरेषु मधानकालानुपन्यायादुदयकालब्यापिनयाद्र इति । समगमदीपि (D.C. ms, No, 871 of 1875-76 ) folio 8 ? ; केचिस्च राजाय हिसितवाक्यवलात्‌ युगेषु युगान्तेषु संक्रन्तिषुः पिण्डं न मन्यम्ते । समयप्रदीष folio 5५ 9 ; इदं च बोधायनवाश्यं राजायलिकितमपि बहुजनसंमतत्वाहिकितम्‌ | earerray (D.C. ms. No, $42 of 1875-76 ) folio 29 a. 800 राजा तु शृङ्गारमेकमेव शृङ्गारमकाे रसमुरीषकार | FHS P- 98 ( 8, 8. 89169 )- 64, Dhiretvara Bhojadeva 279. 1919-22, p. 4562, No. 3079 for Bhujabalanibandha of Bhojaraja in 18 adhydyas on astrological matters in relation to dharmasastra such as strijataka, karnadivedha, vrata, vivahamelaka-dasaka, grha- karmapravesa, sathkrantisnana, dvadasamasakrtya ). The Bhuja- balabhima is also mentioned by Salapani and by Rudradhara in his Sraddhaviveka. Bhoja of Dhara, according to the Bhojaprabandha, had a long reign of 55 years. There are three certain dates of his. A grant of Bhoja is dated samvat 1078 (i. €, 1021-22 A. D.). Vide I. A. vol. VI, p. 53; videalso I. A. vol. 41, p. 201 for Bhoja’s grant dated sathvat 1076 Magha (Jan. 1020 ) and E. I. vol. XVIII, p. 320 for Betma plate of Bhoja dated 1076 Bhadrapada (September 1020A. D.). His astronomical work, the Rajamrganka, takes sake 964 ( 1042-43 A.D.) as its initial ५४६८६.०० Bhoja’s uncle Muifija was slain by Tailapa between 994-997 A. 0. and Muiija was succeeded by Sindhu- raja or Sindhula also styled Navasahasinka. An inscription of Jayasirhha, the successor of Bhoja, is dated sashvat 1112, 1. €. 1055- 56 A. D. (vide E. I. vol. Ill, pp. 46-50). Therefore Bhoja must have reigned between 1000 and 1055 A. D. There is a work named Dharma—pradipa by Bhoja ( Deccan College No. 26 of 1874-75). It isa work by another Bhoja later than 1400 A. D., as it quotes Vijianesvara and the Madanaparijata. It was composed by an assembly of pandits at the bidding of king Bhoja of Agapura, son of Bharamalla. The ms. was copied in Samvat 1695 (i. ९. 1638-39 A. D.). 65. Devasvamin The Smrticandrika tells us that Devasvamin composed like Sri- kara and Sambhu a work in the nature of a digest of smrtis (smrti- Samuccaya ). Vide note 563 above. The commentary of Narayana of the Naidhruva gotra, son of Divakara, on the Asvalayana- grhyasatras? says that it relies upon the bhasya of Devasvamin on the same work. Gargya Narayana, son of Narasirhha, in his commentary on the Asvalayana-srautasatra, tells us that he follows the bhasya of Devasvamin thereon. It is hardly Ol शाको वेदतृनन्दोनो रबिन्नो माससंयुलः । अधो देवान्वितो feateeterstee ॥ रजमृगाङ्क ( 0. 0, ms. No. 105 of 1873-76). %> आश्वलावनगृह्यस्य भाष्यं भगवता कृतम्‌ । देवस्वामिसमारूपेन विस्तीर्णं तत्मसाद्तः॥ 280 History. of Dharmatisiva likely that two writers of the same name flourished about the same time. Hence it may be assumed that Devasvamin wrote bhasyas on the Aévalayana Srauta and Grhya satras and a digest of smrtis, where he discussed all topics of dharma, suchas acara, vyavahira, asauca &c The commentrry of Bhattoji®°s on the Caturvirhgatimata refers to the view of Devasvanin on Sraddha and asauca. Hemadri‘* (vol. Ill, part 2, p. 324 ) and Madhava (on Paraéara, vol. I, part 2, p. 328 ) also quote Devasvamin. The Smpticandrika quotes the views of Devasvamin on vyavahara and asauca several times. For example, Devasvamin®s explained the word Yautaka differently from the Nighantu ( which explained it as the wealth that was given to a woman when she was seated on the same seat with her husband at the time of marriage ). Devasvamin explained that the words of the Sarngraha®°¢ that, when a son was born to one of several full brothers, he stood asa son to all and that the same rule applied to several co-wives when one of them had a son, meant that in both cases another son should not be adopted. Devasvamin held the view (like Bhojadeva) that the word ‘duhitr’ in Yajnavalkya’s verses On succession meant putrika.°7 Devasvamin explained 603 देवस्वामिम।धवपारिजातकारप्रभृतयस्तु मासिके आशाोचेनापहृते सूतकानन्तरश्रदिदिन एव कर्तव्यं परस्तदहरेव वेति | चतुर्विशतिमतव्याख्यान 7. 135 ( Benares ed. ) 604 यदि Gale पवंसाश्धिः समाप्येत तद्‌ नितरामेव च शोभन यदि पुनरपरात्रे Tal वा तदहृकषपोभ्य श्वोमूते याग इति । BAe ( कालनिणंय ) 111, 2, ए. 324; vide pp. 496 and 565 of the same volume for mention of देवस्वामी 605 देवस्वामी तु पितुगृहष्ठव्यं reeset पृथग्धनतया मातुयोतकं मातृधनं मातुर्‌- वेत्याह तच्चिन्त्यम्‌ । स्मरतिच ° 771, ?. 285 ; vide digo ए. 696 “मतुगडलब्धासृ- थग्धनतया Tagged मात॒धनं योतुकम्‌ | योतशब्दस्यामिश्रणमधप्यथंः | यु मिश्रणा- मिश्रणयोरिति धातुपाठात्‌ । यतसिद्धाविति प्रयोगाच्चेति देवस्वाम्याह तदसत्‌ । 606 The verses of the संग्रह are; ययेकजाता बहवो MATEY sau: i एकस्यापि सने जाते सर्वे ते पत्रिणः स्मतः ॥ बह्वीनामेकपत्मीनामेष एव विधिः स्मतः । एका चेत्पुत्रिणी तासां पिण्डदस्तु स इष्यते ॥. The स्मरति ° ( 1, p. 289) says (तस्य पूर्वोक्तेन सहाविरोधाय देवस्वामिना तात्पयार्थं उक्तः उभयन्न नान्यः पतिनिधिः काये इति ग्रन्थेन ” The same words ocour in the स, वि, ( para 398 and p. 305 ) and in the दत्तकमीमांसा ( p. 42 ) 607 एवं सोपपत्तिकी Terns वुहितृगामितां बवता बुहृस्पलिनेवं द दुहितगामि धन- मिति विधायकं वशनजातं तल्पत्रिकाविषयमेव न पनरपन्रिकाद धरेश्वर- देवस्वाम्देवरातमतं स्मतितन्त्रत्वामिङ्णत्वामिमानोभ्मादकल्पितं निरस्तं वेदितन्यम्‌ | समृति ° 11. 66. Devasvamin 281 Manu®*'9, 141 as saying that the adopted son (in the particular case mentioned by Manu) took all the wealth and the gotra of his adoptive father. Vide Smrticandrika (Mysore ed.) on aSauca p. 22. The Vaijayanti ot Nandapandita (on Visnu 22. 32) quotes the view of Devasvamin that on the death of unmarried daughters mourning was to be observed for ten days.°°7 The Smrticandrika quotes a verse from Devasvamin‘®’° on sraddha also. In the Prapajicahrdaya (Tri. ऽ. series, p. 39) we are told that Devasvamin composed a brief gloss on the 12 adhyayas of the Parvamimamsasttra and the four adhyayas of the Sarhkarsakanda, seeing that the bhasyas of Bodhayana and Upavarsa were vast. The Govt. collection of Mss. at Madras has Devasvamin’s bhasya on the Samkarsakanda ( vide Tri. Cat. vol. III, part I, Sanskrit C, p. 3841). There are not sufficient data available to establish the identity of this writer with Devasvamin, the writer on dharmasastra. As the Smrticandrika quotes Devasvimin so profusely, he cannot be later than 1150 A. D. His earlier limit can be determined in several ways. Gargya Narayana’s comment on Asvalayanasrauta (II. 1.14) is quoted by Trikandamandana, who is himself quoted by Hemadri. Therefore Gargya Narayana could not have flourished later than 1100 A. D. ( vide Bhandarkar’s Report on search for mss., 1883-84, pp. 30-31). Therefore Devasviamin probably flourished about 1000-1050 A. D., if not earlicr. The fact that Devasvamin held certain views similar to Bhojadeva’s also corroborates the chronological position thus assigned to him. 66. Jitendriya Jitendriya is one of those writers who at one time held an eminent position but in course of time sank into unmerited oblivion. The works of Jimatavahana bear abundant testimony to the fact that Jitendriya wrote an extensive work on dharmasastra. In his Kala- viveka ( p. 380) Jimatavahana says that Jitendriya®"* wrote on the 608 अन्न तृतीयपादार्थो देषस्वामिना विवृतः तदीयं सर्वे रिक्थं Ast च इरेतेवेति । 609 देवस्वामी त्वमरलास्वपि द्शाहमाई 610 mater समुत्पन्ने अन्तरा मृतसूतके । अमावास्यां weal YAS मनीषिणः । e Il. p. 388 ५4 जितेन्द्रियशङ्ख धरान संभ्रमहरिवेशधवलयेोग्लोकेः । BSA कालनिपणमधुमा निःसारतां याति ॥ H. 0, 36. 382 History of Dharmatisira topic of kala (i. €. on determining doubtful points about the months, the tithis, sarnkrantis, &c. and the religious rites to be performed on them ), In several passages of the Kalaviveka the very words of Jitendriya are quoted. Jitendriya said that a rite that occupies in performance only a short time must be performed at the principal time indicated for it** (and not ata gauga time). From another quotation it appears that Jitendriya controverted the views of a predecessor Sambhramabhatta.°:3 Jitendriya is said to have enumerated the names of the fifteen mubartas of the day from the Matsyapurana‘'4 ; vide pp. 257, 367 of the Kalaviveka for other places where the views of Jitendriya on kala occur. In the Dayabhaga of Jimatavahana also Jitendriya is frequently mentioned. The Dayabhaga says that, if a man takes another's gold believing it to be iron or takes what is another's believing ( in good faith ) that itis his own, Jitendriya held in his remarks on the section of prayascitta that he is not guilty of theft.65 The peculiar doctrine of the Dayabhaga that the widow of a person, whether he was separate or a member of a joint family, succeeded to her deceased husband's estate had been already expounded by Jitendriya.**© The view of Jitendriya was that whatever is acquired by a person without using means or materials jointly owned by all members of a family is his exclusive property and that maitra (gifts ofa friend) and audvabika are 612 तथा जितेन्दियेणाप्युक्ं यप्पुनरस्पकालीनमेव रतयं स्वकाले TATUNG शक्यते तश्नो- Sith: कमेवेतत्यस्यासामथ्यंस्याभावान्मुर्यकाल एव कमीनुहठानमित्यन्तम्‌ । । काटलविवेक p. 489. 613 अभ्यान्यपि एवंविधानि संभ्रमभटकल्पितान्युपेक्षणीयानि art, तद्यमतिमन्दतमो wa: कथं सुन्द्रमतिना जितेन्द्रियेण।भिनन्दित; । का।लबिषेक 7. 266. 614 अत एव Praia ' रोद्श्ेत्रश्य मेत्रश्य ... भटः पञ्चदश स्मृताः ॥ › एताम्भत्स्थ- पुराणोकनेढेकशर्तपरिमितान्‌ यावक्नियतक्रमसंक्ञानमिधाय aA काङविवेक p. 370. 615 अत एव प्रायग्नित्तकाण्डे जितेद्धियेण भणितं यादि स्वणैमेव aed लोद्यविबुङ्गधा गृह्णाति असुवर्णं सुव्णेबुदथा आत्मीयसवुशं परकीयमेवात्मीयबुद्धया Tent we नापडादनिष्पातिः सर्वत्र यथावस्तु परकीयबुदधेरमादात्‌ । दायमाग 9. 360 ( od. of 1829 , p. 224 of Jivananda ). | $16 अतोऽविशेषेणेव विमकत्वायनयेक्षयेवपुश्रस्य a peal walter मिते. Parates आद्रणीयः । दायमाग ए. 256. । 68. Jidtendriya 89 only cited ( by ४३.) as examples of this proposition.6*7 Jitendriya held the daughter’s son entitled to succeed after the daughter, just as Vigvarapa, Bhoja and Govindaraja did. In the Vyavaharamatrka of Jimatavahana also Jitendriya’s views are cited (on pp. 302, 334 ). This shows that he wrote also on procedure in law courts. Jitendriya is also referred to in the Dayatattva of Raghnnandana.®" But no other early writer quotes Jitendriya. Therefore it appears that Jitendriya was probably a Bengal writer and flourished about tooo-r050 A. D. and that he was completely eclipsed by the brilliant Jimitavahana. 67. Balaka. Balaka like Jitendriya is no more thana name to us. Jimdtavahana’s works make frequent reference to him. He held the view that the daughter’s son, not being expressly mentioned as an heir by भत्र, came in after those expressly mentioned from the widow to the brother.°"9 The Dayabhaga notices that Balaka read a text of Apastamba in a wrong way.°?° Balaka said that the words of Sankha ‘ svaryatasya-aputrasya bhratrgimi dravyam. .. jyestha va patni’ apply either to a widow belonging to a caste other than her husband’s or to a very young widow or in case her husband was undivided or re-united.©?! Balaka says that when some property is acquired by one brother by means of learning, other brothers are not entitled 617 जितेन्धरियेणापि werent Rais तद्स्य यःवदुक्तपपचस्य संहेपेणायमर्थः पत्येतन्पः य्छिबिदुनमसाधारणोपायाजितं तदसाधारणं प्रदुर्शितमितयन्तेन । दायभाग ?. 189. 618 अत एव परक्डीयत्वेन विशेषतो जानतस्तद्पहारे सतेन्यं न तु स्वद्रम्य्नमेण परद्वन्यभ्यव- TATA जितेन्द्-( जितेन्द्रिय ! )दायमागप्रायश्ित्तविवेकरम्भतम्‌ । द्‌। पतस्व ?. 182 ( vol, ए of Jivananda’s ed. ); compare the view of eae set out below from the दायभाग ( note 683. ). 619 ae बालकद्नं Te Tears पितर भ्रातरस्तथा EN नियतक्रमाद्घस्तन एव दोहितरस्याधिकार हति तद्र बृहस्पतिविरोधाद्‌ यालवचनमेव | दायभाग ए" 282. 620 इदं बालकेनाकूलीकृत्य पठितं यस्तु धर्मेण Ae प्रतिपादयति ज्वेष्स्तं पितसम- भागं waite तद्नाकरम्‌ । दायभाग ». 161. The sutra is Ap, 79. 8. II. 6, 14.15 ‹ यस्त्वधर्मेण व्रभ्याणि प्रतिपादयति ज्येष्टोपि तमभागं कुर्वति. ` ^ यञ्च ॒बालकेनोर्त- असवर्णाविषयं वा युवत्यमिपायं वा अविभकतसंसुषटविषयं वा द्ध, देवचनं हति तेनाभ्यवरिथतशाख्ाथेकथनेनात्मनो भालङपत्वमेव Til सम्देहादेकतरानुष्ठानानुपपत्तेः । दायभाग ४. 268. Here thereis a play on the word wae, 23% History of Dharmaétistra to that क्वाणो. = The Dayabhaga refers toa passage from ‘Balaka in which the latter relies on the Parvamimarhsa example of ‘miudga and masa.*3_ In the Vyavaharamatrka of Jimuatavahana ( p. 346 ) it is stated that Bala held the same views as those of Srikara-misra ‘onacertain point. In the Prayaécitta-niripana of Bhavadeva a writer named Valoka is mentioned ( vide JASB 1912 at p. 336) This seems to be a Bengali scribe’s way of pronouncing the name Balaka. Bailaka is mentioned in Raghunandana’s Vyavaharatattva (-p. 47) also as holding the view with Srikara and others that adverse possession for twenty years conferred ownership in the case of immovable property.*4 Sulapani in his Durgotsaviveka twice quotes the views of Balaka and once refutes the latter.625 Hence it appears that Balaka was an eastern or Bengal writer, composed a work on several branches of dharmaégastra ( such as vyavahira and prayascitta ) and flourished before r100 A. D. 68. Balarupa. In the Smrtisira of Harinatha( I. 0. cat. No. 301, folio 128a ff ) there is a long passage setting out the views of Balaripa on the question of the succession to a childless man. In the Vivada- candra®*6 of Misaru-misra the opinions of Balarapa ( Balarapamata ) 622 बालक्रेनप्युक्तं न द्येकेन भात्रा aia ठब्धेऽपरेषामधिकारसंमवः प्रमाणाभावादि- व्यन्तेन | दायभागं ४. 190. | 623 अतो यदुबालकवचनं यथ। ATI माषप्रतिनिधौ Feat माषाणां च यज्ञसंबन्धे- अयहिय। वे माषा-इति माषा निषिद्धाः, तथात्मीयानात्मीयहृरणेपि अनात्मीयापहारो निषिद्धः, तद्वाटदवचनमेव पुबष्याहूतस्य रतेयपदारभस्यवाभावात्‌ | दायमाग ?. 356. 624 तस्मादयाह्नवल्क्यादि्विचनाष्टंशतिव्षदशवषादिकालर्मोग एव स्वत्वं जनयति तथा काल- met चीजमङ्करं जनयति तरवश्च कुसुमभिति स्वामिना चापरित्यक्तेपि शाज्ञोक्त- कालीनमगास्स्वाम्यमन्यस्य भवति यथा जयेन राकः परराष्र्षने इति । एवमेव भीकरबालकजेग्लोकभवदेवभटथूलपाणिकुष्ठकमटचण्डेभ्वरमन्त्रिनव्यवधंमानोपाध्याय- TAT | CATT लादृगेव भ्यवहारतस्व p. 223 ( Jivananda vol. IT). 6४5 इति अर्नविनाधिकारीयिष्णुधमेत्तरिवचनमाच्रदुर्शिना यालकेनान्र विषये पूर्वदिने नवभी- कृत्यं युग्मादिति age ˆ भगवःयाः प्रवेशादिविसर्गान्ताश्च याः क्रियाः ' इत्यादि वचनेन विराधात्तद्धेयम्‌ । दु्गोःसव विवेक p. 16 ( Sanskrit 88111४5 87271 १86 ed. ). Vide p. 9 also for reference to gras view on देवीपुजा, (06 बुहितृणाममावे तदेन्वयस्ततुत्रादिर्विभजेदित्यरथः। मातुरन्वय इति ATT | विवाद्चन्द्र ( 2. 0. ms. No. 57 of 1883-84) folio 88a; बालङ्पमते तु संसु सहोद्रत्वमपि संसृष्टविभागमहृणे हेतुः । 10. folio 35a, - 68. ‘Balartiga त 205 that the words of रद]. ( II. 117 tabhya rte’nvayah ) mean the off- spring of the mother and on the succession to reunited coparceners are cited. In the Vivadacintamani of Vacaspati*®7 the views of Bala~ rapa are frequently cited. Relying on the words of 24124414, Balarapa held that an unmarried daughter was entitled to preference over a married one as an heir to a sonless man. As regards the verse of Harita that ifa young widow was karkasa ( quarrelsome, ‘suspected of unchastity ° according to others ), then she was to be ‘given maintenance alone ( out of her husband’s estate ), Balaripa’s view was that it refers tothe widow of a re-united coparcener.§*® Balardpa was of opinion that a@tmabandhus, pitrbandhus and matr- bandbus succeeded in the order stated.6*9 The Kaladarga of Aditya- bhatta names Balarapa among the authorities on which it relies. This shows that Balardpa wrote not only on vyavabara but also on kala. As Harinatha and the Vivadacandra mention Balaraipa he is certainly earlier than about 1250 A. D. The important question is whether Balaka and Balaripa are identical. I think, though with some hesitation, that they are identical. The difficulty is caused by the fact that Harinatha speaks of ‘the author of Balarapa,’ which implies that Balaripa is a work and not an author, while the others speak of Balaripa as an author. The Dayabhaga always speaks of Balaka and never of Balaripa, while the Mithila writers, Misaru-miéra, Vacaspati and Harinatha, speak of Balarapa and not of Balaka. Balaka is not mentioned by any writer belonging to a province other than Bengal. It is not likely that there were two early authors belonging to the same locality on vyavahara bearing two names so nearly the same as Balaka (or Bala ) and Balarapa. Moreover if we read one quotation from the Dayabhaga between the lines ( vide note 621 ) where Jimatavahana makes fun of Balaka by charging him with having exposed his Balargpatva ( being Biala- ripa, being childish ) it appears that the Dayabhaga looked upon Balaka and Balarapa as identical. If so Balaka or Balaraipa 67 अपुत्रस्य कुमारी tet sefianent चोढा चेति ceanTeTeday करम इति Wiser । विवादुिन्तामाणि p- 153. 628 सृ्टिमायापरमिति बाढपः। विवाद्जिन्तामणि ए. 152. % एतेषां करमेणाधिकादः । बाठक्कपोण्येवम्‌ । Rare Greg P- 155, 206 History of Dharmatistra becomes an ancient writer, who flourished certainly before 1109 A.D. Asheheld the same views as Srikara and an antiquated view about the rights of the daughter’s son he must not be later than roso A. D. 69. Yogloka Yogloka like Jitendriya and Balaka is a writer about whom we know only from the works of Jimitavahana and Raghunandana. He is the last of the series of writers enumerated in one place by the Kalaviveka as having dealt with the subject of kala (vide note 641 above ). The Vyavahara-matrka of Jimatavahana very frequently®s° cites the views of Yogloka and generally twits him with thinking himself as being a logician or a new-fangled ( nava-tarkikash-manya ) logician, Both in the Kalaviveka and the Vyavaharamatrka Yogloka is generally cited for being refuted (€, g. pp. 457-58, 465, 483 of the Kalaviveka ). It is only very rarely that Jimatavahana agrees with Yogloka (as on p. 369 of the Kalaviveka ). From certain passages of the Kalaviveka it follows that Yogloka composed two works, one called Brhad-Yogloka (larger work ) and the other styled Svalpa- Yogloka (a smaller-work 2.4" It appears that Yogloka was later than Srikara and accepted certain illustrations given by the latter. The Vyavaharatattva of Raghunandana informs us that like Srikara and Balaka, Yogloka held the view that twenty years’ adverse possession of jmmoveables conferred ownership (vide note 624 above). The same work tells us that the Maithilas followed the view of Yogloka that the verse of Katyayana ( yadyekadesa- vy4ptapi... nrpam) was intended to apply to a case where a litigant threw down the challenge that if even one out of several 630 Vide pp. 291, 203, 295, 310, 318, 313, 341, 69 Ghaleay तु स्वस्पवहद्‌ ्म्थभेदेन हइ यमेवोकं बल।यलनिरूपण।क्षमल्वात्‌ | SVS p. 365 ; तस्मान्मुलाधार्मिककम्पितं योग्लोकस्य बृहद रगे aie । अस्यैव लल्य- we अन्येषु थ ॒मियन्धेषु दृशेनाद्‌ योग्ठोकीयचहदूपन्थवुरातनुर्ती्वमावात्‌ | तस्मार्स्वयमेवेतदू योग्लोकेनापि बृहदु ्रन्थ लिलितम्‌ । काल विषे 7, 275; vide also pp. 177, 221 490 for references to योग्टोक 658 ag giant asec योग्लोकस्य adit कमागता भूरिति भाषां nailed द्शवर्षभुज्यमानत्वात्‌ इति श्रीकरोदृाहृरणस्वीकरणं तदसंभतम्‌ | व्यवहारमातृका p. 502, 69. Yoogloka 287 items of property charged were brought home to him as having been stolen by him, he would restore all the items claimed.%35 The foregoing establishes that Yogloka wrote at least on kala and vyavahara and composed two treatises on kala. Jimatavahana‘s+ says that a predecessor of his styled Diksita criticized a certain reading of Yogloka’s, i.e. Yogloka preceded Diksita, who was a predecessor of Jimttavahana. Jimitavahana further refers to ancient ( purdiana ) mss. of Yogloka’s work. Hence Yogloka must have preceded Jimatavahana by at least a hundred years. He is later than Srikara(note 632 above). Therefore he must have flourished between 950-1050 A. D 70. Vijnanesvara The Mitaksara of Vijiianesvara occupies a unique place in the Dharmasastra literature. Its position is analogous to that of the Mahabhasya of Patanjali in grammar or to that of the Kavyaprakaga of Mammafta in Poetics. It represents the essence of dharmasastra speculation that preceded it for about two thousand years and it became the fountain head from which flowed fresh streams of exegesis and developments. Under the decisions of the Courts in British India, the Mitaksara is of paramount authority in several matters of Hindu Law (such as adoption, inheritance, partition etc. } throughout India except where, as in Bengal, the Dayabhaga prevails. The Mit. professes to be a commientary on the Yajiiavalkya- smyti. In the colophons of several mss. it is described as Rju- mitaksara, Pramitaksara or simply Mitaksara. These names are probably due to some of the verses appended at the end of the commentary.§35 The Mit. isnot only a commentary explanatory 633 sqegitqeq P. $17 ( Jivananda vol. II ) ‘ay येषां मध्ये एकमपि भथा गहीतं विभावयसि तवा सवेनेव दातभ्यमिति प्रतिक्ञाविकयत्वमेकदेशविभावितत्वं वयनस्योति जोग्कोकमतानुस्मिथिलमतं युकमिति वश्यम्‌ । › OM mre इति तु पितं बोग्लोकेन तद्वहुष्ववश्न भवतीति sete । काठनिवेक OF इति याहवल्क्यमुनिशाकलगता fey कस्य विहिता विदुषः । भ्रनिताक्षरावि लाथेवती परिविशति भवणधोरमतम्‌ ॥ गम्भीरामि भिताक्षरा। अनल्पार्थामिरत्पाभिर्विदुतिर्विदधिता भथा ॥ 268 Bistory of Dharmatistra of the verses of Yajiiavalkya, but it isin the nature of a digest -ot smyti material. It brings together numerous अप passages, explains away contradictions among them by following the rules of inter- pretation laid down in the Parvamimarhsa system, brings about order by assigning to various dicta their proper scope and province ( visayavyavastha ) and effects a synthesis of apparently disconnected smyti injunctions. The Mit. quotes a host of smrti writers®3® and six predecessors, who were commentators and authors of digests on dharmasastra, viz. Asahaya, Vigvarapa, Medhatithi, Srikara, Bharuci and Bhojadeva. Besides it quotes Vedic works (like the Kathaka ), the Brhadaranya- kopanisad, the Garbhopanisad, the Jabalopanisad, the Nirukta, Bharata ( author of Natyasastra ), ४०९०५114, Panini, Susruta, the Skandaporana, the Visnupurana, Amara, Guru (i.e. Prabhakara ). The author styles himself Vijfianayogin in the concluding verses of his commentary and later writers frequently refer to him in that way. He belonged to the Bharadvaja gotra and was son of Padma- nabhabhatta. He was a paramabhamsa (i. €, an ascetic ) and was the pupil of Uttama. Hetells us that when he wrote the Mitaksari, king Vikramarka or Vikramadityadeva was ruling in the city called Kalyana®37 ( now in the Nizam’s dominion ). The verses at the 636 The स्मरति and WHS quoted by name are: अङ्गिरस्‌, युद्दङ्गिःरस्‌, मध्य. MRT, अत्रि, आपस्तम्ब, MATT, उपमन्यु, उशनस्‌, ऋष्यशृङ्गः, कश्यप, काण्व, कात्यायन, SOMA, कमार, हृष्णद्वपायन, BI, ard, Taare, गोभिल, गोतम, चतुरविंशतिमत, च्यवन, छागल ( Basa ), जमद्म्नि, जातू- कण्यं, जाबाल, ( ०-लि ), Hina, दक्ष, Seana, देवल, धौम्य, नरद्‌» पराशर, पारस्कर, पितामह, Fares, Wa, Waly, पचेतेस्‌, य॒हत्मचेतस्‌, बृ दुमचेतसू+प्रजापति, WKS, TWAT, वुदधबृहस्पाते, WIAA, AVA, MHA, मादान, भगु, मनु, TEA, ृद्धमनु, THY, माकंण्डेय, यम, HTH, याज्ञवल्वय, FEAT, qareaera, feiea, sina, वसिष्ठ, sede, szulee, ष्ण, seers, वृद्विष्णु) वेयध्रपादु, देशम्पायन, ध्याघ्र ( ° व्याघ्रपाद्‌ ), ध्यास, TEFEN, VW, , शङ्कलिसित, शण्डिल्य, शातातप, BEAT, वृद्धशातातप, शनःपुर्छ, शोनक, ` षटर्िशनम्मत, dad, aga, सुमन्तु, हारीत, बृहद्धारीत, Faerie. 637 नासीदस्ति wena क्षितितले कल्थाणकस्यं पुरं नो दृष्टः श्रुत एव वा क्षितिपतिः श्रीदिक्रमाकोपमः । विज्घानिन्दरपाण्डितो न भजते िंचा"यदम्योपमश्याकर्पं स्थिरमस्तु कृत्पलतिकाकञ्पं तदेतज्नयम्‌ ॥ 4th verse at the end. 70, Vijfanetvara 289 end containing the personal history appear to be genuine. They occur in the oldest Mss. of the Mit. such as the Government of Bombay Ms. dated sakasamvat 1389. The author of the Mit. was a profound student of the Puarva- mimamsa system. Throughout the Mit. discussion of Parva- mimarhsa nyayas and their application to dharma$astra are sown broadcast. For example, the Mit.on Yaj. I. 81 (whether it is a niyama ot parisamkbya ), 1. 86, I. 114, II. 126, Il. 265 &c., may be consulted. The Mit., as the very name implies, is generally concise and to the point. Butin his desire to make his work a repository and synthesis of varied smrti dicta the author does not mind if he has occasionally to expand his commentary to enormous lengths. For example, the Mit. on ४३]. III, 265 and 290 occupies several pages of closely printed text. As the Mitaksara names Visvarapa, Medhatithi and Dhiareévara, it must have been composed after 1050 A. D. The Smrticandrikas38 of Devannabhatta ( which as will be seen later on was composed about 1200 A. D. ) several times criticizes the views of the Mit., viz. the latter’s remarks that the giving of an additional share to the eldest son is disapproved of by the people, the reasons given for preferring the mother to the father and the definition of daya. Vijfianegvara is named in the Kalpataru of Laksmidhara%s9 ( compos- ed in the 2nd quarter of the 12th century ). This shows that the Mit. was composed before 1120 A.D. A greater approximation can be arrived at in several ways. The Kalpatarn mentions 68 aqateraies mrad विषमो विभागः ... Ba: | एतदपि वाश्चात्रेणेतबु- दवारविषमविभागादौ लोकविदवेषोस्ति त्युत वियागुणपुण्यकर्मसंपन्नज्येषठादौ भागा- fet लोकानुरागो दृश्यत हति यत्किचिदेतत्‌ । स्मृतिश्च ° 17. p. ४66; ‹ न च दाय- शब्देन यद्धनं स्वामिसंयन्ध।देव ,,. तदुच्यत इति दायादिशब्दनिरूपणा्भं भिता- ange युक्तम्‌ ' cafes. 77. ?. 267 ; ‹ पिता स्षपत्नीपु्रेष्वपि साधारणो माता तु न साधारणीति परत्यासस्यतिशयोस्तीति विप्रलम्भसदशभिदं न हि जननीजनक- थोजन्यं परति संनिकषैतारतम्थमस्ति। ° स्म॒तिच 7. p. 297. ००४ ^ क्षत्रधर्मस्तु art meet TREAT न कारयेदिति विज्ञानश्वरस्वरसः ' folio 580 of the Benares Sanskrit College transoriptof कृल्पतश ( ०४ ब्यवहार ) H, De 37. $90 History of Dharmatiara Vadibhayarhkara®*° who, the Viramitrodaya® tells us, was an admirer and follower of VijiianeSvara and yet found fault with his explanation of Yaj. II. 51 ( rikthagraha rnam &c. ). Therefore the Mit. must have been composed at the latest before 1100 A. D. Among the Calukyas of Kalyana, the only king named Vikramarka or Vikramaditya during whose reign Vijianesvara could have flourished is Vikramaditya VI who reigned for over fifty years from about 1076 to 1127 A.D. Vide Bombay Gazetteer vol. I, part 2, pp. 446-453, I. A. vol. 48 p. 6 (for pedigree of the Calukyas of Kalyana with dates ), I. A. vol. 12 p. 212 (for an inscription of Vikramaditya Tribhuvanamalla dated sake 1047 ) and I. A. vol. 22, pp. 296-298. From all these considerations it follows that the Mit. was composed between 1070-1100 A. D. Out of the numerous commentaries on the Mit. those of Visve- Svara, Nandapandita and Balambhatta are the most famous. Vide sec- tions 93, 105, 111. Considerations of space preclude any detailed state- ment of the doctrines peculiarly associated with the name of Vijiia- 165५41४. There are however some which must be mentioned. He laid down ( on Yaj. I. 52 ) that wherever the word sapinda occur- red, it denoted either directly or mediately connection with particles of one body (i. €, blood-relationship withan ancestor ). He also strictly adheres to the principle that propinquity is the guiding principle in matters of inheritance and succession. He divides daya into apratibandha and sapratibandha and affirmed that sons, grandsons and great-grandsons acquired by birth ownership in ancestral property. On all these matters he is diametrically opposed to Jimatavahana. Aufrecht in his great catalogue makes conflicting statements about a work called Asaucadagaka. On I. p. 55 he notes that Aéau- cadasaka is a work of Harihara with a commentary by Vijfianeévara and again on I. p. 571 he ascribes Agaucadagaka-tika to Vijiianesvara. On I. p. 762 he ascribes the Agaucadasaka and Dasaslokivivarana to Harihara and appears to distinguish him from that Harihara who 640 शोध्यस्य जननी तातः TH वा तत्सोद्रः । भार्या पु्नवती धर्म्या ज्ञातयः परिकीर्तिताः ॥ इति वादिभयंकरे हस्यतिदननात्‌ | tbid. folio 230. 641 विज्ननेन्वरानुयायी यथात्र TTS THRE | अद्य बत जगतख्यातविज्ञनिन्वरवो LAT | Ghats नानुततन्धाममद्धतम्‌ ॥ दीरमिन्रोदय १. 380 ( Jivanands), — 20, Vijhinetvara 491 composed a bhasya on Paraskaragrhyasitra. On I. 0. 795 he corrects himself by saying that Harihara wrote only the commentary on the Agaucadagaka and that the latter is identical with the Dagasloki- ` vivarana. On III. p. 121 he is doubtful whether the Aégaucadasaka is a work of VijaneSvara. Inthe Deccan College collection there is an ancient Ms. ( No. 196 of 1884-1887 ) of the Agaucadasaka. 64 It was copied in sashnvat 1578 Margasirsa (i. e. December 1522 A. D.). It distinctly says that VijfianeSvarayogin composed in ten Sardila- vikridita stanzas a work on 2424८ and that Harihara composed a commentary on it. In the Bhadkamkar collection there is an old Ms. of the Agaucadagaka, the colophon of which ascribes the work to Vijfianesvara. Vide I. O. cat. p. 565, No. 1749 for a ms, of ASaucadasaka with Harihara’s commentary dated samhvat 1589 ( 1532-33 A.D.) That the Aéaucadagaka was a very popular work follows from the several commentaries thereon that are available even now. Raghunatha%4}, son of Madhava and nephew of the famous Narayanabhatta, composed a commentary on the Daéaéloki in Sake 1500 (D.C. No. 82 of A. 1882-83). -There is another commentary on the same work by Bhattoji (09. C. No. 99 of 1582-83 ). Harihara quotes in his bhasya, besides several well- known smrtikaras, a work called Visvadarsa ( folio 4b ).64+ Harihara, the commentator of the Paraskaragrhyasitra, is described as the pupil of VijfidneSvara in several mss. Harihara in his bhasya on Paraskaragrhya quotes Vijianesvara and Kalpataru. The Visva- darSa praises Vijianesvara very highly.°45 Therefore it appears that 642 The ms. begins: अथ विज्ञनिश्वरविरचितमुनिज( न )वाकयेर्भेताक्षरमध्यात्‌ । आशोचदृशकनरत्ति वदति sted इरि नत्वा ॥ अन तावद्िज्ञानेश्वरयोगीन्द््तुवंणा- SY जन्मनि सूता भवं TAS मरणे TI मवं शावं चूतकशावसिद्धंधथं aque शादलविक्रीडितेन QS तन्ना FAAS मातुगैमेविपत्स्वघ &6. Thecolophon at the end is इत्याशोचद्शकभाष्यं श्रीहरिह(र ) विरचितं समाप्तम्‌ । ०५० रघुनाथ criticizes वि्ञानेश्वर यत्तु विज्ञानेभ्ब्रेण प्रतिलोमानां AMAIA एवेत्युक्तं तद्रबनविरोधादुपक्षणीयम्‌ । प्रतिलोमा भमेहीना इत्येततु पाकयज्ञायभिश्रायम्‌ ' folio 19, ०4 संमति विशेषो विन्वादशौत्‌ ‹ परतस्लीणां Bret पिवुविपदि मवेत्‌ ° . यथा ( तथा ! धन्य प्रतिगृहं स्फुराष्विन्वादुशो स्फुरतु तव कतिः eaten: ॥ TV. 53; श्रीरामस्य qr अ यथा रामायणे मारते ङीर्विमोति यथा च gages सा कारिका भूषणम्‌ । भीमदन्य मिताक्चरादिषु यथा afew स्तथा विन्वदज्खनिषन्धने wa peels जयन्त्यू्जिताः wmf विश्वाद्श (in Bhadkamkar collection ), 262 History of Dharmatistra Vijiianegvara composed the Asaucadasaka alias Dagasloki and that Harihara, who was either VijfidneSvara’s pupil or not very far ~ removed from him ( 25 he is quoted by Hemadri ) composed a com- mentary thereon. The first verse of the DagaSloki is cited below as a specimen of the concise style attempted by the author.*4° Aufrecht (II. p. 50 and I. p. 236 ) credits Vijfianegvara with a bhasya on Trirhsat-sloki, a work in thirty Sragdhara stanzas on asauca. This work together with the commentary was printed in pothi size at Benares in samvat 1918 (1861-62 A. D.). The printed text contains*+7 the same colophon at the end and date as ‘tthe D. €. ms. No. 217 of 1879-80, which was copied in sarmhvat 1711 Caitra (i.e. April 1655 A. D.). It is extremely doubtful, however, whether Vijfianegvara wrote a bhasya on the TrirhSat-sloki. In the bhasya Vijfianesvara and the Mitaksara are cited by name.*48 The manner of referring to them rather suggests that the commentary on the Trithsat-Sloki was composed by some person other than Vijiianesvara, who, however, drew largely on the Mit. There is a ms. of the Trirhgat-sloki with a commentary in the Bhau Daji collection which is ascribed to Hemadri on the cover ( vide BBRAS. cat. vol. II. p. 209, No. 667 ). In the Madras Govt. mss. library there is a ms. of the Vyavahara- siromani of Narayana, who says that he learnt dharmasastras under VijfianeSvara (adhitya dharmasastrani Vijianesvara-sadguroh ) The work deals with the vyavahara portion and was composed for the benefit of the un-initiated (balabodhartham). The ms. contains the portion dealing with the king’s duty tolook into the disputes of people, the time for doing that, sabha, definition of prad-vivaka (judge ), the plaint and its defects, asedha ( restraint of the 646 मातुगै्मविपत्स्वघं त्रिदिवसं मासत्रयेतो यथा मासाहं Ry सूतकावधिरतः स्नानं पिः सवेदा । ज्ञातीनां पतनादि जातमरणे पित्रोदेशाहं सद्‌ा नाम्नः प्राक्‌ तदुपति सूतक- वशाद्भातुदंशाहं परम्‌ ॥ 647 Tho colophon is इति विह्वानेभ्वरकूते नरिरच्छोकीयमाध्य संपूणम्‌ । 648 rs दशरात्रं वा ... GTS मातुरेव हि ॥ हत्येतदृष्याख्यानसतमये विज्ञनेभ्वराचा्े .स्पष्टीरूतम्‌ ॥ . Sb of the printed text and 20 ० thems. The verse refer- red to is याज्ञ, III. 18, On verse 14 of the शर्की wehave ‹ एत्व भावार्यपिश्युपाभ्यायान्‌ ,.„. न च तेः सह MNT ॥ इत्येतदरभ्यार्यानमिताक्षरायां VET p. 9b of the printed text and 5a of the ms, 20, Vijntinetvara 298. defendent ), means of proof the eighteen titles of law, ०451732, niksepa, sarnbhaya-samutthana, dattapradanika, abhyupetya-asusrasga, vetanasya-anapakarma, asvamivikraya, vikriyasarhpradana, kritva- nusaya, samayasyanapakarma, simavivada, stri-purhsayoga, dayavi- bhaga. ‘The work breaks off in the middle of the explanation of the verse ‘patni duhitaragcaiva’. He closely follows the Mitaksara in allthat he says; but in one place he expressly differs from his teacher, viz. whereas the Mitaksara mentions four different times for partition, Narayana says that there are really two times of partition, when the father desires partition and when the son or sons desire it.648a On sarkbhayasamutthana he quotes a passage from Kautalya ( the ms. uses this form ), which agrees closely with the printed text ( vide Arthasastra III. 14, p. 186, ed. by Shama Sastri ).°4*b q1. Kamadhenu This was an ancient digest on the various branches of Dharma- Sistra. Unfortunately no ms. of this work has yet come to light. The Kalpataru of Laksmidhara refers to the view of Kamadhenu and others that what was bestowed upon a slave ( dasa) by his master through favour was also under the control of the master.64? The Hiralata which was composed in the third quarter of the 12th century several times mentions the views of Kamadhenu.°s¢ 68a अनया चातु्विष्यमस्म्रुश्चरणर्मिताक्षरायां प्रतिपादितं पितुरिष्छायां पुत्रेच्छायां च विभागः संभवति नान्यथेति कालद्वथमेव विभागस्येति तु युकम्‌ । न च पित्रनन्तरकाल एक इति भेविध्यमिति वाच्यं पिज्रनन्तरकालेपि पुज्राणामिच्छाभवे विभागस्येवामावेन THEA एवानन्तरकालस्याप्यन्तभवात्‌ | 8b अन्न विशेषमाह कोटल्यः । अभिष्टोमादिषु दीक्षणीयाया ऊर्ध्वं य आपन्नः Tag लमेत सोमविक्रयादुष्वं चतुथं परवरमयोदासनादृभ्वं तृतीयमभिष्टोमीयादुध्वं पादोनं माध्यं Pangea सममेनीतासु दृक्षिणासु भवतीति । 049 On the verse of कात्यायन ! दासस्य fe धनं यत्‌ स्यात्‌ स्वामी तस्य प्रमु्म॑तः ' the कृत्पतर्‌ „859 ‘ war प्रसादे स्वामिना दासस्य कृते दत्तं तन्न दासधनेपि स्वामी भमुरिति पकाशहछायुधकामधेनुपारिजातम्रभूतयः; ॥ > 1011० 876 ofthe कट्पतड्‌ ( Benares College transcript ). 650 @. g. on p. 41 “जत एव जातमूते मृतजाते a कलस्य त्रिरान्रामेोति हमरतिषथनं काम. dapat गर्मसावारी प्रकरणे लिखितम्‌ | १, . Vide pp. 111, 174, 200 algo for other references to the Bray and note 596 above, $04 History of Dharmatastra Sridharacarya, in his Smrtyarthasara,°s* enumerates the Kamadhenu among the works and writers who dwelt upon the teachings of the अण, The Vivadratnakara‘s? of CandeSvara speaks of the Kamadhenu several times. In the Sraddhakriya-kaumudi certain verses from the Kamadhenu are cited in connection with the rites on certain tithis of the month of Agvina (0. 261 ). Salapani in his Sraddhaviveka names as his authorities the Kamadhenu and other digests after the smrtis.653 The Samayapradipa‘s¢ of Sridatta notices that the Kamadhenu read ‘dvitiya caitramasasya,’ while the Kalpataru read ‘ trtiya.’ The same reading of the Kamadhenu is noticed in the Smrtisara of Harinatha (I. O. cat., No. 634, folio 79b ). In the Rajanitiratnakara the Kamadhenu is quoted on the definition of ‘raja’ and on the two varieties of rulers (pp.2 ands). In Hemadri there is 3 quotation from Smptikamadhenu ( vol. IV, p. 992 ) about the freedom in kali from incurring sin on account of contact with great sinners. The question arises who isthe author of the Kamadhenu. If we rely upon a highly paronomastic passage of the Vyavahararatna- kara®ss of Candesvara, Gopala was the author of the Kamadhenu. In the Rajanitiratnakara (2. 81 ) Gopala is said to have held, with 651 कामथेनो प्रदपेब्धो कल्पवृक्षलतासु च । शम्मुदरविडकेदारलोष्ठरायैश्य भावितम्‌ # मन्वायनेकस्मृतिषु व्याख्यातृभरतिपादितम्‌ । स्मत्यथस्षारं वक्ष्यामि सुखानुषठानशिदधये ॥ Intro. verses 4-5 ( Anandaérama ed.). प्रदीषे is a wrong reading for प्रदीपे 65४ यं कामयेनुरनुयाति सकल्पवृक्षो८( क्षा! ee Bax निजफलाय स पारिजातः । तं भैरिगोन्रमिदमुष्चसदखदशिं चण्डेश्वरं तुलयितुं कतमे भवन्तु ॥ Maer ( verse at the end); there is a play on the words कामधेनु, कल्पवृक्ष ( कल्पतर ) ५५ पारिजात Which are names of works on धर्मशाञ्ज 8180; vide विवादृरत्नाकर्‌ PP. 78, 80, 135, 498, 651 for other references to the कामधेनु 655 The श्राद्धविवेक begins विलोक्य ध्मशाञ्ञाणि कामघेन्वादिं ग्रहान्‌ | विवेकः पार्णा- दीनां क्रियते शूलपाणिना ॥ 68५ अन्न च ert द्वितीया चैश्रमासस्येति लिखितं कल्पतरो तृतीयेति लिद्धितं वद्र qrege ऽथोतिःशाज्ञे मधौ त्तीयेति पाटाश्ये्रतृतीयेव मर्या । समयमदीपि 2“ ^. ms. No. 471 of 1875-76, folio 589, 655 यन्न्यायामतसेचनात्सफलतां पुष्णाति कल्पद्रुमः सथः पहठदमातनोति Pract श्रीपारि- जातोपि सः । गोपालस्य च दामधेनुरमणं काम्यार्थदुग्धं स्वयं eA स्वयमेष कस्य भवने सेव्यो न रत्नाकरः ॥ व्यवहाररत्नाकर ( 241४१०० Notices, vol. VI. p. 66). erga ( BeIag ), पारिजात, क।मधेनु and रत्नाकर have two senses, 71, Kamadhenu 295 Laksmidhara and Srikara,*s* the view that on the state wealth poor and helpless people have a claim and that the state perishes if the supreme authority is wielded by many (and not by one). The same work (p. 84 ) cites the opinion of Gopala that the coronation rites mentioned in works on rdajaniti are merely illustrative and that according to the particular usages of countries and families a king may be proclaimed without those rites by merely being seated on athrone.°s7 The Pitrbhakti of Sridatta expressly mentions that itis based on the works of Gopala and others. The Viramitrodaya cites the view of Gopala that vyavahara comes under what is called jalpa in the technique of the Nyaya system and that the view of Misra that Vyavahara is comprised under the term vada of the same system is wrong. Whether the Gopala mentioned by Mitramisra is the same as the author named by CandeSvara it is difficult to say. But it seems to me that they are identical. Aufrecht in his great catalogue (I. 93 ) ascribes the authorship of the Kamadhenu to Sambhu. Whence he derived this information is not clear. The authors and works cited by him do not, so tar as I know, ascribe the Kamadhenu to Sambhu. ४ is true that Sambhu is credited by the Smpticandrika with a digest on dharmasastra ( vide note 563 above ) and the Smrtyarthasara also names him as one of the authorities on which it relies. Hemadri$s9 also tells us that Sambhu was a nébandha- kara and refuted the views of Medhatithi on Manu III. 125. The Smrticandrika frequently cites the views of Sambhu on vyavahara and generally refutes them. For example, on the word ‘pitarau’ occurring in Yaj. II. 135 Sambhu remarked that no difference should be made between the parents (father and mother) as heirs, since whoever out of the two took the wealth of their son it would come 656 Vide note 565 above. 657 गोपालमते स्वभिषेकादिपयन्तमुपलक्षणं यथदेशकुलाचारं सिंहासनदानादि ACETATE rae aq गोपाठेन तश्वनिर्णयेषु कथात्वाद्वादुत्वमेवास्येति मिश्रमतत्वेनोपन्यस्य जयभङ्ग- फलेकत्वात्‌ स्थापनावसनरवाश्चं जल्प एवायमिति तन्निरस्तं तद्‌ ह्रयभण्ययुक्तम्‌ । Ato P. ४, 50 दो देवे ... कृमुभयन्न धा ॥ यदप्येकेकमुभयन्र वेत्ययं विधिरेव न भवलीति सेनेवोक्तं तत्तु शम्भुनमतिभिनियिन्धकारेः पराकृतमिति अस्माभिननाद्रियते । wate 171. 1, ». 148 ; तदेवं तावद्‌ qe होमस्तदभावे तूपासनाप्राविति शम्भकषद्कधरपमतयः aay IIL. 1. ए. 1331. 296 Eiistory of Dharmatastra to both.6 Vide also Smrticandrika II, pp. 205, 216. Therefore Sambhu also, being mentioned by the Smpticandrika and the Smptyarthasara, is certainly earlier than r150 A. D. In this state of the authorities I am doubtful whether Sambhu was the author of the Kamadhenu. Iam inclined to hold that he was not the author of that work and that Gopala was the author. This conclusion is somewhat strengthened by the fact that the Smrtyarthasara mentions both Kamadhenu and Sambhu as authorities on which it relies. If Sambhu had been, in the opinion of the Smptyarthsara the author of the Kamadhenu, the mention of both would have been super- fluous. Mr. Jayasval (in JBORS for 1927, vol. XIII, parts 3-4, p. VII ) ascribes the Kamadhenu to Bhoja, but this is wrong ( vide p. 277, note 576 ). As the Kamadhenu is named as an authority by the Kalpataru and the Haralata it is certainly not laterthan 11004. D. It cannot be very much earlier since it is not mentioned by Medhatithi and the Mitaksara. It may therefore be assigned to the period betwecn 1000 and 1100 A. D. 72. Halayudha The Kalpataru®** of Laksmidhara in its vyavahara section quotes the views of a jurist Halayudha several times. The Vivadaratnakara of CandeSvara mentions Halayudha dozens of times. In the Smrti- sara of Harinatha®*? Halayudha-nibandha on possession is quoted. The Smrtisara also says ( folio 140 ४ ) that Halayudha favoured niyoga by the widow of a son-less deceased person and deprived the widow of succession to her deceased husband if she did not submit to niyoga. This was the view of Dhiaresvara also. According to Halayudha®s parents succeeded before brothers to a deceased person 060 यत्तक्तं श्म्मुना अध्यक्तधनत्वाद्‌ दुम्पत्योर्थेन केनचिदमाणमुमयाथमिति न विशेषो THeq इति तदृयुक्तमू । क्मतिब 9 II. p. 298. 661 Vide note 649 above ; and folio 380 ( of Benares Sanskrit College trans: OFipt }. : 668 अन्र इलायुधनिबन्धे स्वरसः | STTAETONEHTS सागमेव मुकिः प्रमाणं श्रपुरेषिक- भोगे तु आगमास्मरणे मुक्तिः प्रमाणं स्मार्तकाले क्रिया भूमे$ ,,. पुरषागता इति कात्यायनवभेनात्‌ । हानिप्रतिपादकानां च वाक्यानां पनाणपरिपालनकर्तष्यताशेषःवात्‌। सार (1, 0, cat. No. 801, folio 107 9). 663 याज्ञवल्क्येन poi Raid Se ai भरातर इति भर पिप्रोरधिकार उक्तः स पिवृषितामहार्जत- . भविस) ; to afer: wa agente । स्मृतिसार्‌ @ | । 72. Balayudha 997. if the property in the hands of the deceased was ancestral, but that if it was acquired without detriment to ancestral property then brothers succeeded even before parents. Halayudha is cited in the Vivadacintamani also, €. g. Halayudha®** held the view that the -werse of Yaj. (II. 126 ) was intended to convey that where joint property was concealed by a member and was discovered after partition, he did not incur the guilt of theft. This same view was held by Jitendriya and others. Raghunandana quotes Halayudha in his Divyatattva, Dayatattva and Vyavaharatattva. The Vira- mitrodaya®s also quotes Halayudha. The foregoing shows that the work of Halaiyudha, the jurist, was avery valuable one. This Haliyudha must have flourished before 1100 A. D., since the Kalpataru (1125-1150 A. D.) looked upon him as an authority. As Halayudha is not mentioned by any of the early commentators like Medhatithi-and by the Mit. and as he held opinions similar to those of Dharesvara, Jitendriya and others, he cannot well be placed earlier than 1000 A. D. ‘Therefore he flourished between 1000 and 1100 A. D. He was probably a Maithila or Bengali writer, as, among the comparatively early writers on dharma, it is the writers of the north, particularly of Mithila and Bengal, that rely upon him asa great authority. The name Halayudha (an epithet of Balarama, the brother of Krsna ) was a common one in India. It seems to have been borne by several eminent writers and this fact has created a great deal of contusion. ‘There is one Halayudha who was the author of the Abhidhanaratnamala ( edited by Aufrecht ), the Kavirahasya (edited by Sourindra Mohan Tagore in 1879 and by Heller in 1900 ) and probably the Mrtasafijivani, a commentary on the Chandab-satra of Pingala. In the Kavirahasya he gives the various forms of roots in the several conjugations and connects all verses with Krsna, . the 66 ~ e CT om o 1 अन्यान्यापहूृतं . . - स्थितिः ॥ अचाविभक्तत्वादेव विभागे wa वचनारम्भोत्र चर्य द्‌।षामा्वं ज्ञापयतीति हलायुधः । विवाद्चिन्तामणि ४, 148. Vide दूयततत्व (४. 182 Jivananda, vol. IT ) for the same view of Sora, 66 ° eX, $ Cc ५ ° अक्षः Ta निदितस्तुलाधारपटह इति मिताक्षरा । दाढभयोजकः कीलक इति हलायुध । ` वर» ए" 854; - वीर्‌० 2. ४ says इलायुध readin Ay ^“ 7 स निर्वास्यः for स निर्वास्यः ( निभौज्यः), ४. D. 38, 268. History of Dharmatistra emperor of the Deccan ( Daksinapatha ). This Krsnaraja was most probably the Rastrakata emperor Krsna whose dates range from 940 A. D. to 959 A. D. ( vide JBBRAS, vol. 18, page 239; Bom. Gazetteer I., part 2, p. 210; I. A. vol. 11, p. 109 and Bhandarkar’s Report, 1883-84, pp. 8-9. ). In the colophon to the Mrtasanjivani the author is described simply as bhatta-Halayudha. In that com- mentary verses are quoted as illustrations wherein Mufija alias Vakpatiraja is highly extolled.**7 Mufija was slain by Tailapa between 994-997 A. D. Hence Halayudha, the author of the com- mentary on Pingala, must not have flourished much earlier than the latter half of the 10 century. It is not unlikely that Halayudha after being at the court of the Rastrakatas migrated to Avanti when the star of Mufija, who was himself a scholar, rose on the horizon of central India and when the fortunes of the Rastrakatas waned. But this Halayudha who hailed from the Deccan cannot be the first Halayudha who appears to have flourished in Mithila or Bengal. There is another Halayudha, author of a famous work called Brahmana-sarvasva printed at Benares in sarhvat 1935. But this was not available to me and hence I used a Ms. of it in the Deccan College collection ( No. 9 of A 1883-84 ). He gives some account of himself and his family in the introductory verses. He belonged to the Vatsya gotra and was a son of Dhanafijaya who is described as dharmadhyaksa (judge ). Laksmanasena, the king of Bengal, gave him dharmadhikara ( 1. e. made him judge ३.५८ He had two elder brothers®*s Pagupati and Isana of whom the former composed Sraddha-krtya-paddhati and Pakayajiia-paddhati and the latter the 666 अद्स्यगसरस्यम॒निभ्योस्स्नापवित्रे TAUNTS । रुष्णराज इति ख्यातो राजा ETT दीक्षितः ॥ verse 6 { Heller's ed.). Verse 164 ( Holler ) desoribes him as राष्टकूटकूलादरह. 69 og. जयति मुवनेकवीरः सीरायुधतुलितविपुलबठविमवः। भनवरतविन्तवितरणनिर्जित- WUT FI ॥ स जयति वाक्यतिराजः &०.--मृतस्तजजीवनी 4th chap. 668 area स्यापितराजपण्डितपदू श्वेताशुमिम्भोज्ज्वलच्ठग्रोत्सिकमहामहखनुपदं दत्वा नवे योवने । यस्मे यौवनशेषयोम्यमलिलस्मापालनारायणः शीमौक्मणसेनदेबनूपति्मो- धिकार wat | verse 12; vide also Peterson’s cat. of Ulwar mss. p. 188, extract No. 356. 600 भ्राता Tarr: पशुपतिः MAE भ्यधादीशानः PITT forest FINI: Talay | verse 34. १8. Haldyudha 301 Dvijahnika-paddhati. He tells us in the Brahmanasarvasva that i, composed Mimarhsasarvasva, Vaisnavasarvasva, Saivasarvasva, Pan- ditasarvasva.°7° Unfortunately no Ms. of any of these works has so far been discovered. The chief object§7! of the Brahmanasarvasva is to explain the meaning of the mantras used by Brahmanas in daily observances from the brushing of the teeth to going to sleep and in the sarskaras on birth, marriage, death etc. He wrote for the Vajasaneya Kanva Sakha and acknowledges‘7? his debt to Uvata who wrote a bhasya on the Vajasaneya Sarhhita in Avanti while Bhoja ruled the earth ( mahirh Bhoje praSasati). In some intro- ductory verses and the several colophons of the sections of the Brahmana-sarvasva Halayudha styles himself avasathika, mahadbar- madhyaksa or simply dharmadhyaksa, dharmadhikarin and his brother Pasupati also is styled avasathika. It is very difficult to say what is the exact meaning of this last word. It probably means one who regularly performs all the grhya rites.673 Vide Tri. cat. of Madras Govt. Mss. for 1919-1922, pp. 5165 for a ms. of Pandita-sarvasva which deals with the usages of varnas and asramas, tithi, Suddhi, the time for Sraddha, jyotihéastra, marriage, gifts, prayascitta, pratistha &c. But whether it is Halayudha’s work it is difficult to say from the extracts given. The time when Halayudha the author of the Brahmanasarvasva flourished can be easily settled as he was the dharmadhyaksa of Laks- manasena of Bengal. The Adbhutasagara was begun in sake 1090°7+ 670 sinteretes वेष्णयस्वस्वमकृत शेवसर्ेस्वम्‌ । पण्डितसर्वंस्वमसो सर्वस्वं सर्वधीराणाम्‌ ॥ » verse 19. ५1 द्न्तधावनमारभ्य यावदन्त्ये्टिमीरिता । मन्प्राणां तावता तस्मिन्‌ ष्याख्यानम॒पद्ितम्‌ ॥ 672 ष्याख्यातो मतिशालिनायमुवटाचार्येण वेदः परम्‌ । अस्पष्टं तदपीत्यनेन विदुषा विश्व प्रसिद्धेः पदेः । सन्भ्यादिद्धिजकर्ममन््रवसां व्याख्यानमेतत्‌ कृतम्‌ &. 675 Compare पारस्करगृह्य 1. 2. 1-४ « आवस्षथ्याधानं दारकाले । दायायकाल एकेषाम्‌ | › 014 शके सनेवखन्टुष्दे अरेभेदुतसागरम्‌ । गोदधन्बकुन्जरालानस्तम्मंबःहुमहीपितिः ॥ अन्येस्मिश्नसमास एव तनयं सामाज्यरक्चामहादीक्चापर्वणि दीक्षणान्‌ निजकृतेर्निष्पि- मभ्यथ्यं सः | मयादाममिनाम्बुसस्लम्तः (1) भुयौत्मजासङ्गमं गङ्भायां विरचय्य नि्जरपुरं भायानुयातो गतः ॥ भीमङ्कक्मणसेनमूपतिरतिश्लाभ्यो wear Pers इतसागरः कृनिरसौ बलालमूमीभुजः | &०, folio 3a of 2. 0. ms. No, 231 of 1887-91, History. of Dharmasdastra “Yi. €. 1168-69 ) by Ballala-sena and it was ultimately finished by his son Laksmanasena. That these verses are not spurious follows from a reference in the Todarananda-samhita-saukhya about the position of the constellation of the Great Bear according to the Adbhutasagara in the sake year 1082 (1160-61 A.D.) while Ballalasena was ruling.75 The Saduktikarnamrta of Sridharadasa‘7® who was acontemporary of Laksamanasena, furnishes us with the exact year of the accession of Laksamanasena viz: that sake 1127 corresponded with the 27th year of Laksamanasena’s reign, i. e. he -began to reign in 1178-79 A.D. Therefore the literary activity of Halayudha, the author of the Brahmanasarvasva, lies between 1175-1200 A. D. There is, lam aware, a very heated controversy about the dates of Ballalasena and his son Laksamanasena, butI am inclined to hold, particularly on account of the explicit reference contained in the body of the Adbhutasigara‘77 itself and in the Todarananda, that Laksamanasena came to the throne about 1178-79 A.D. The Brahmanasarvasva and the Panditsarvasva of Hala- yudha are quoted by Raghunandana in the Ahnika (pp. 389, Jiva- nanda, vol. I ), Prayascitta ( pp. 531, vol. 1 for Panditasarvasva ) and other Tattvas. Sourindra Mohan Tagore (introduction to Kavi- rahasya p. I-II ) says that Adigira brought to Bengal five Brahmanas from Kanoj of whom Bhatta Narayana was the most famous and was the author of the Prayogaratna and also of the Venisamhara and that Halayudha was 16th in descent from that Narayana. These traditions of the matchmakers of Bengal and panegyrists of big families are entirely worthless for literary and chronological purposes, 675 ‹ arena चाद्रतसागरे मजवसुदशमित १०८२ शके श्रीमद्रह्ालसेन- राज्यादौ वर्धकषष्िमोगा मुनयस्त्वासन्‌ विशाखासु तस्य चाभिप्रायोयम्‌। folio 99४ of टोडरानन्दसंहितासोख्य 0, ©, ms, No. 915 of 1886-92 676 शाके सषरविंशत्यधिकशतोपेतदशशते शरदाम्‌ । ्रीमलक्ष्मणसेनक्षितिपस्य रसेकविरेब्दे ॥ सवितुगेत्या फास्णुनविशेषु TI कुतुकात्‌ । श्रीधरद्‌सेनेदं सदुक्तिकर्णामतं चक्रे ॥ Vide Indian Historical Quarterly, 1927, vol. IIT, p. 186; vide also S@ASBB 1921, p. १, Ind. Ant. vol. 48 ( for 1919 ) at 171-176 and Ind. Ant. 1922, p. 146, 158 for discussion of the date of TEAST, Vide &. I., vol. XV. p. 278 for the views of Mr. R. D. Banerji who holds that लह्मणसेनं ascended the throne in 1118-19 A. D. €77 19 the printed edition of the अद्रतसागर ( at p. 285 ) we have अतुस्तश्र तेने तद्‌ मरन्थारम्भशकाद्‌ वषाधिपगणनं सनवदशशेषशाके &. ( published in 1905 by Prabhakari and Oo. ). 72. Haldyudha 301 particularly for events of comparatively early times. In their zeal to extol their patrons’ families to the skies they were most unscru- pulous and threw to the winds all chronology. The Prayogaratna was composed at Benares by Bhatta Narayana whose family migrat- ed from Paithan in the 16th century, while the Venisarhhara was composed about a thousand years earlier. Yet both works are fathered upon Narayana, the ancestor of the rich and influential Tagore family. There is yet another Halayudha. On the Sraddhakalpasitra of Katyayana a commentary called Prakasa was composed by Hala- yudha, son of Sankarsana ( vide BBRAS cat. No. 518, p. 170 ). In this commentary he refers to Karka, Kamadhenu, Kalpataru, Govindaraja, Laksmanopadhyaya, Mitaksara, Sankhadhara and Pasupati. He is therefore later than 1150 A.D. He cannot be identified with the author of the Kavirahasya, asthe latter flourished much earlier under the Rastrakutas. Nor can be the same as the jurist Halayudha, since the latter is named in the Kalpataru, which in its turn is quoted in the Prakasa. The dharmadhyaksa of Laksa- manasena was a son of Dhanajijaya, while the author of the Prakasa was a son of Sankarsana. The Sraddhakasika of Krsna ( Gujarati Press ed. p. 430) on the Navakandika or Sraddhakalpasatra of Katya- yana says that first Karka‘7* explained the sitra in pregnant words and then Halayudha explained it and yet it remained as difficult as before. Krsna is mentioned in the Nirnayasindhu and the Sraddha- maytkha of Nilakantha. Therefore Halayudha, the author of the Prakasa on Katyayana must have flourished before 1509 A. D. and later than 1150 A. D. Vide J. A. S. B. 1915 pp. 327-336 where M. M. Chakravarti brought together interesting information about Halayudha. 73. Bhavadevabhatta The Vyavaharatattva of Raghunandana and the Viramitrodaya tell us that Bhavadevabhatta composed a work called Vyavaharatilaka on judicial procedure. The Vyavaharatattvas79 tells us that Bhavadeva 8 कर्को व्याख्यदिदं गमीरवचनैः ast यतोस्मादमद्‌ gad च ततो हलायुध TA ष्याख्य- तथाण्यस्कुटम्‌ ॥ 679 ‹ अस्तव्य्तपदेष्यामि अनम्वितार्थपद्भ्याप्तामिति ध्यवहारतिलके भवदेवमहः ' । ष्यवह्मर- तरव ( 7. 207, vol. II, Jivananda); भवदेकेन तु अस्वभ्यस्तपद्ग्यापीति पादं लिसित्वानन्वितार्थपदुन्यापमिति ध्यास्यातं श्यवहारतिकंके | Vite ए. 5९. .. 302 Eictory of Dharmatistva tread ‘astavyastapadavy4pi’ instead of ‘yadvyastapadamavyapi’ in Katy&yana’s verses enumerating the blemishes of uttara ( defendant’s reply). The VyavaharatattvaS*¢ mentions Bhavadevabhatta’s discussion and illustration of a reply (uttara}) with a weak plea (karana ). The same work informs us that Bhavadeva held the same views on adverse possession as Srikara, Balaka and others did ( vide note 624 above). The Vivadacandra of Misarumiéra‘*: several times refers to the views of Bhavadeva. The Viramitrodaya‘®? gives in great detail the remarks of Bhavadeva on the well-known text of ` Sumantu about killing an 41412010, The Sarasvativilasa®®s and the Vaijayanti of Nandapandita quote the very same views of Bhavadeva- bhatta on Sumantu’s text. The foregoing brief discussion shows that Bhavadeva’s Vyavahara- tilaka must have been a valuable work on judicial procedure. Unfortunately that work has not yet come to light. Bhavadeva also wrote several other works. In the Deccan College collection there are two Mss. ( No. 9 of 1895-98 and No. 263 of 1887-91 ) of a work of Bhavadeva variously named Karmanusthanapaddhati or Dasakarma-paddhati or Dasakarma- dipika. M.M. Chakravarti in his informing article on Bhavadeva (J. A. 9, B. 1912, pp. 333-348 ) says that the work has often been printed. Iwas notable to secure a copy. That work°*4 deals with 680 दुरबेककारणोत्तरं यथा ममेयं मः कमागतत्वादिति वायुक्ते ममेयं॑भ्दरावर्षमुज्यमानत्वा- दिति rot तत्तु धनमाश्रप्युक्तं पश्यतोबुवतो इानिधनस्य दशवार्षिंकीति याहृवस्कीयं att किं तु नेतयुक्तं परेण मुज्यमानाया मूमेविंशतिवा्िकीति मूमिमाञ्नविषयकं तत्वरार्धनापादितत्वादिति मवदेवभटाः । ष्यदहयरतश्व . 208 881 यस्य दृश्येत सपाहादुक्तस्ष्यस्य साक्षिणः । अन्न यथपि भवदेवेन रतदिष्यस्योति feed तथाप्यक्तसाक्ष्यस्येष्यमिधानादरूतदिन्यस्यापि gud कूतदिष्यस्येति प्रायो- वादं । विवादचन्द्र ( folio 51a of D. ©. ms. No. 57 of 1883-84) ; भवदेषेन J न रोगाभनिज्ञातिमरणं af वस्य विनिरदिशेदिति लिकितम्‌ू 1° ‰१० ( folio 55 ४). 689 अग्र॒ भवदेवभटः । न॒ च सुमम्तुवचनेन नाततयिवधदोषोन्यन्न emerges विरोधः सूधरच्छेद्ापरिञ्वानात्‌ | तथाहि सुन्नन्रयमिदम्‌ । आाततागिवधे नेत्येकम्‌ | दोषोभ्यन्रेत्यपरम्‌ | TOTEM: TTT कु्यौदित्यम्यत्‌ । बीर ० P- 22 693 Vide स. वि, 2. 154 ( Mysoreed.).and वेजयन्ती ०४ विष्णुधमेसुध्र 5. 189 (1, 0. cat. No. 915 folio 50a ) 68 It begins चतु्ववनलदस्थभतु्वेदकुटुम्यिने | Rorpvawretentet बरह्मणे नमः गृयसुखार्थमालोश्य उन्दोगानामियं कमात्‌ । रता ATTN कमनिुष्ानपदुतिः ॥ 18, Bhavadevabhatia $63 the ten principal rites and ceremonies to be performed by Brahmanas who study the Samaveda. The principal subjects are:—The Homa to the nine planets ( Navagraha-homa), matrpaja, panigrahana and other essential rites of marriage, homa on the fourth day after marriage, garbhadhana, purhsavana, simantonnayana, sosyantihoma ( homa when a woman is on the point of delivery ), jatakarma, niskramana, namakarana, annaprasana, ctdakarana, upanayana, samavartana (the student's returning from the teacher’s house after finishing his studies ), Salakarma (first entrance in a new house ). Another work of Bhavadeva, who is styled Balavalabhi-bhujanga therein, is the Prayascittanirupana (I. O. cat. No. 1725 p. 554; Mitra’s notices, vol. IX, No. 3138, pp. 214-15). In that work he mentions over 25 smrtikdras, the Matsya and Bhavisya puranas, Vigvarapa, Srikara and Baloka (? Balaka). This work was held in high esteem, as the Smrtiratnakara®*s of Vedacarya places Bhavadeva after Manu among the authorities on prayascitta that he follows. The Varsa-kriya-kaumudi of Govindananda (B.'I. series ) quotes a text from Bhavadevabhatta on the prayascitta for eating in a solar or lunar eclipse ( p. 106 ). There is yet another work of Bhavadevabhatta called Tautatita- matatilak, a ms. of which exists in the India Office ( cat. No. 1591 ). It is doubtful whether that ms. contains the whole of the work. That work is concerned with elucidating the doctrines of the Purva- mimarhsa system from the standpoint of Kumarilabhatta (who is also called Tautatita). From the colophons at the end and elsewhere it appears that the work was intended to explain Jaimini I. 4 and II. 1, but in the body of the work contained in the Ms. only siatras from the first pada of the 2nd adhyaya are dwelt upon. Bhavadeva is styled Balavalabhibhujaiiga here also and invokes a terrific curse®*é upon those who would borrow from his work without acknowledg- 685 म्रन्वदिस्मृतिशाश्चाथं भवदेवादि्तेमतम्‌ । प्रायभ्यित्तमहं वक्ष्ये विज्ञाय पापनिष्छतो ॥ स्मृतिर्नाकर्‌ ( 1. 0. cat. p. 413). 686 The colophon at the end is इति श्रीयालवलभीभृजङ्गापरनम्नो मटृशीभवदेवस्थं कृतो तोतातितमततिलके द्वितीयस्याभ्यायस्य मथमः पद्‌ः । यो नाम कश्चिदिह संविदितं ममेयं अभ्भान्तरे fea षा बदति स्वयं वा । मत्कर्तृतामननुकीत्यं स कीतिंलोपान्निःसेततिर्जगति जन्मशतानि भूयात्‌ ॥ 904. History of Dharmatiséra ing their debt. The work opens with the well-known sitra ‘bhavarthah karmagabdah &c. (Jaimini II. 1. 1). It goes on explaining the principal topics of Jaimini’s 2nd adhyaya, first pada. The satras explained are II. 1. 1, 5, 9, 10, 13, 24, 30-35, 38, 40 46- 49. It mentions the bhasyakara (Sabara), Vartika (folio 12 a), Gurumata (17b), Prabhakara ( 210), Vartikakarapada (22 b, in the plural). It frequently quotes karikas from the Tantravartika with the words ‘taduktam.’ Heméadri®*7 quotes Bhavadeva’s expla- nation of the words of Kumiarila allowing an option between jaghanya and ajya and disapproves of it. Vide Tri. cat. of Madras Govt. Mss. for 1919-1922 p. 5527 for the same work. Unexpected light is thrown on the personal history of Bhavadeva- bhatta by an inscription found in the temple of Ananta Vasudeva at Bhuvaneévara in the Puri District of Orissa edited by nielhorn in E. I. vol. VI, p. 203, which eulogises Bhavadevabhatta, the identity of the author Bhavadeva with the person eulogised being established by the unique epithet, Balavalabhibhujanga applied to the latter. The eulogy is composed by a person called Vacaspatikavi. Bhavadeva belonged to the Savarna gotra of the Kauthumi school of the Samaveda. The family belonged to Siddhalagrama in Radha (west of the Hugli and south of the Ganges). Bhavadeva’s remote ancestor Bhavadeva obtained in gift the agrahara of Hastinibhitta from the Gauda king. The father of Bhavadeva was Govardhana, a warrior anda scholar. His mother was Sangoka, daughter of a Vandhyaghatiya Brahmana. With the advice of Bhavadeva king Harivarmadeva is said to have reigned long in prosperity. Bhavadeva is stated in the above mentioned inscription to have composed works on hora (astrology ), smrti, and mimathsa. Bhavadeva is eulogised as a great builder. He constructed a reservoir of water in Radha, he set up a stone image of Narayana and founded a temple in which he piaced images of Narayana, Ananta, ann Nysithha. He also gave 687 तथा च जाघभ्याधिकरणसिदान्ते जाघन्याज्ययोधकस्पे TETAS मषदेवेनोक्तम्‌ | इदं सिह वक्तव्यम्‌ । कथं सामान्यविषितेनाञ्येन विशेषविहितजाधम्यिकल्पः सर्वत्र सामान्यविशे षशाश्योर्वाभ्यबाधक मावेच्छेदुप्सङ्गात्‌ | नतत्‌। योरपि विशेषशाञ्जतवात्‌ | &o. चतुर्वर्ग ° ( कालनिणय ) ?. 120. Vide also p. 404 for another reference to भवदेव 998 यस्य लु यालवलमीमुजङ्ग हति माम नाहतं केन । भीमासिवापि सपुलकमाकर्णित- वणितोद्रीतिम्‌ ॥ verse 24 78. Bhavadevabhatia ` $08 to Harimedhas female attendants, dug a tank and laid ‘out a garden. Neither Kielhorn nor Chakravarti has attempted any explanation of the epithet Balavalabhibhujafiga. I hazard an_ explanation. Bhavadeva probably made some innovation in the structure of the roofs or balconies of the temples he built and he was therefore styled a lover (a gallant or paramour ) of little ( ba/a-small sized or girlish ) valabhis. From the nature of che character Kielhorn conjectured that the inscription belonged to the 12th century A. D. The date of Bhavadeva can be approximately settled to be about 1100 A. D. as he is quoted by Hemadri, the Vivadacandra of Misaru and the Smrtisara of Harinatha. He is certainly earlier than 1200 A. D. A period of at least half a century must have elapsed before a Bengal writer like Bhavadeva came to be looked upon as an autho- rity on mimarmsa by Hemadri who wrote in distant Berar. It appears that he was quoted in the Karmopadesini of Aniruddha (1. 0. cat. No. 1853, ए. 474 2). But that Ms. is bound up with another work by a later author and the reference in the cat. is not quite clear. If we rely on the Viramitrodaya, a work called Pradipa criticised the views of Bhavadeva on the verse of Yaj. II. 24 ( about adverse possession for 20 and 10 years), Bhavadeva held that twenty years’ enjoyment of immovable property by a stranger implied that the real owner meant to abandon it for the benefit of the stranger enjoying it, that such abandonment for the enjoyment of another leads to the inference of the extinction of previous ownership and that the property being abandoned by the owner in favour of the stranger who takes hold of it, ownership also ( of the stranger ) arises. The Pradipa®®9 points out that it does not invariably follow = er An EA —— 689 भवदेवस्तु ... तस्मादेवं TY यद्यं यथाक्तो भोगः पूरवस्वामिनो भोक्तुद्शेन त्यागात्‌ तत्स्वत्वध्वंसम्थापयति अनुमापयति वा । ... तथा च AAMT AP तत्परिमरहणा- देव परस्य तन्न स्वत्वमप्युपपयते । ,.. अन्न प्रदीपरूतः । यत्र हि मल्रत्ये- ( ष्ये ! ) दानीं AT फलसम्भाषना तदधुना .तावत्पर एव भुक्त्वा (मुक्ता ! ) पश्चादेतत्सकाशा- त्सफलोपभोगां भुवं मरहीष्यामीत्यमिसैधाय water तत्र परोपभोगं क्षमते तन्नापि विंत्यभ्यधिको भोगोस्ति antag त्यागश्च नास्तीति व्यमिचारान्ने- arin पूर्वस्वामिस्वत्वत्यागे प्रामाण्यम्‌ । किं च मूस्वामी सचेता; किमिति वृथेव तत्र स्वत्वं TM । न द्यत्र CURL नाण्यदृष्टं धर्मशाञ्ञोक्तेतिकर्तव्यताविरहान्‌ |... नापि यदुदधेशेन यत्त्यज्यते तत्तस्य स्वामिति नियमः । उदेश्येन गृहते भ्यमिचारात्‌ । fize p. 212-14, ४.०. 39. 306 History of Dharmatistra that, because a srranger is allowed to enjoy land, the owner intends to abandon the land for the stranger, nor is it an invariable rule that what is abandoned for another becomes the property of that other. It will be shown later on that the Pradipa must have been composed before 1150 A.D. Hence it follows that Bhavadeva flourished about 1100. He cannot be very much earlier than that, as he is not mentioned by any writer of the r1th century and as he not only mentions Kumarila and Prabhakara, but also writers who criticised Prabhakara’s views. There were several other later persons named Bhavadeva who wrote on topics of Dharmasastra such as Bhavadeva, author of Danadharmaprakriya ( middle of 17th century ), and Bhavadeva, the author of Smrticandrika, who flourished in the first half of the 18th century. On Bhavadeva’s Karmanusthana-paddhati there is a commentary called Sarhsarapaddhatirahasya. 14. Prakasa. A work called Prakasa has been quoted by very early nibandha- karas. The Kalpataru quotes the interpretation of Prakaga, Hala- yudha and Kamadhenu ona verse of Katyayana.% The Vivada- ratnakara of Candegvara cites the views of Prakaga scores of times ( € £. 7. 131, 145, 456, 460, 462, 474, 485, 504 etc ). Frequently Prakasa is coupled with Parijata (e. g. p. 497 ). On page 518 of the Vivadaratnakara a remark of Prakasa wherein both Asahaya and Medhatithi are named is cited.69' The Danaratnakara of Cande- Svara quotes a passage of Sathvarta with Prakaéa’s explanation of it.692 In the Sraddhasaukhya of Todarananda Prakaga’s explanation 690 Vide note 521 above. On पणे जितः, one of the 15 kinds of dasas enumerat- ed by नारद्‌, the कल्पत quotes the remarks of the प्रकाश ‹ यद्स्मिन्विवादे पराजितो भवामीरयादिपरिमाषणेन anfiga: gather इति प्रकाशपारिजातो ।' ( folio 368 of Benares Sanskrit College transcript ). 691 fan दत्तमिति क्ञीधनमान्नोपलक्षणमित्यसह्मयमेधातिधिरिति ८ ° थी हाति ) पभरकाश- कारः । वि, र. ( on मनु 9.198). Vide 7. 509 of वि. x, where प्रकाश ०1४७४ मेधातिथि ००९ « पत्युरनुहञातेनाप्यदत्तोप्यलङ्कारो चो Aes. धृतः सोपि दाया- देनं हर्तब्य हाति मेधातिथिरिति sewage: ». 698 ‘dag: । सर्वेषामेव दानानामेकजन्मानुगं seq) इाटकक्षितिगौरीणां सप्तजन्मानुगं फलम्‌ ॥ गोयोन्न ग।वः प्रकरणात्‌ । गोरी अश्वौ कम्योति भरकाशः । › दानरत्नाकर ( D.C. ms. No. 114 of 1884-86 folio 52 b ). [1 ६ . . she 24, Prakita 307 of the word ‘ Yanevata ’ occurring in a passage of Sankha about the fruits allowed in Sraddha is quoted.®93 These quotations establish that Prakasa was a work that not only dealt with vyavahara, but also with such topics as dana, sraddha etc. Whether the Prakasa was an independent work or acommentary is somewhat doubtful. But froma passage of the Vivadaratnakara it seems to follow that it was a commentary on the Yajfiavalkya- ऽपि, There we are told that the Kalpataru®4 read ‘abhijanata’ for ‘avijanata’ in Yaj. I. 258, but that since that reading is opposed to Yajfiavalkya-prakasa, Halayudha and Parijata it must be, regarded as a wrong reading. As it is a reading of Yaj. himself that: was being discussed, it would be somewhat strange if it were said that it was opposed to Yaj. and Prakasa and therefore it is necessary to suppose that Yajiiavalkyaprak4sa is one work. The Vivadacintamani in several places gives the explanation of Prakaga.°95 The Smptisara®%® gives at great length the explanation of Prakasa on the controversial verses of Yaj. (II. 138-139 ) The Viramitrodaya®s7 quotes at length Prakaga’s explanation of Manu (9. 207 ) and disapproves of it on the ground (among others ) that the verse can more clearly be explained so as to convey 693 'आन्रान्यानेवतानिश्चूमृदढीकामष्यदाडिमान्‌ । . . . श्राद्रकालोपपादयेत्‌ ॥ यानेवतः काश्मीरे ate इति प्रसिद्धः 1 प्राचीनामलकमिति परकाशकारः। › श्रादरसोख्य folio 42 a (D.C. ms. No, 257 of 1884-87 ). 09५ कल्पतरो तु अविजानतेति स्थाने अमिजानतेति पाठो ala: स तु याह्नवस्क्यप्रकाश- इलायुध-पारिजातविरोधात्‌ प्रमादपाठ इति लक्षितः । वि, x ४. 198. ९95 विद्यापि साधारणधनानुपन्केषेण यदर्जितं तदेवाविभाज्यमिति प्रकादाकारः | तन्न उभयोपादानानथक्यात्‌ । वि. जि, ?. 155 ; ‹ परिसंरूयनयलाचितृशरातु पितुष्यरेव विभागपु्वंकं धनमेलनं संसगं इति प्रकाशः 1’ वि. चि. ए. 157 ; vide pp. 180, 140 also. ; 06 प्के तु मृतस्य cate धनं dqeanta weiter । विभागकाठे अज्ञातगमोधां Remit पश्वादुत्प्नस्याससषटथेव दयात्‌ । सोदरस्य तु defen धनं संसृष्टी सोद्रो retary मिग्नोदरः संसूष्टथपीति geen: । अन्योदयेस्तु संसृष्टी धनं गृह्णीयादिति शेषः । नान्योदृ्येधनं हरेदिति संसृष्टयपीत्यनेन संवध्यते & ०. arcane (I. 0, cat. No. 801, {०11० 148 b ). 097 Vide चीर्‌० p. 572; the same also opours in षि. चि, . 180, 06 History of कटक a meaning similar to that of Yaj. II. 116. The Prakasa is mentioned in the Dayatattva (vol. II, p. 173 ) and in the Suddhitattva (vol. II Pe 288 ) As the Prakaga is quoted in the Kalpataru it is certainly earlier than 1125. It mentions Medhiatithi. Besides the Mit. does not refer to it. There is room for thinking that it follows the Mit. Yaj. II. 116 is, according to the Vivadaratnakara,°9* explained by the Prakasa in almost the same words as the Mit. It is possible that both borrow from the same original. At all events the Prakasa must have been composed between 1000 and 1100.A. D. Hemadri frequently cites a work called Maharnavaprakaéa.°99 According to the latter the sandal unguents, flowers, incense, lamp presented in Sriddha are to be offered to the Brahmanas invited and not to the pits. In another place Hemadri quotes the explanation of the word ‘ nimantraua’ 7०० given by the Maharnavaprakaga. In some places Hemadri refers to a work called Smrtimaharnava or simply Maharnava.7° It appears to me that all these three are the names of the same work. The question then arises whether the Smrtimaharnavaprakisa is the same as the Prakasa mentioned by the Kalpataru and Candesvara. In the present state of our knowledge it appears that they are identical. The Madanaparijata (p. 93) quotes a verse from the Smrtimaharnava about upakarma. 75. Parijata. Several works bear the appellation Parijata such as the Vidhana- parijata (composed in 1625 A. D.), the Madanaparijata ( about 1375 A. 0. )andthe Prayogaparijata ( between 1400-1500 ). But = 698 अच्रापि प्रकाशः किंचिद्सारमापि zen पृथक्क्रिया विभागः कर्तन्यः agent विवाद्‌- निदृस्यर्थमिति । वि. र. ?. 485 ; यक्किचिदसारमपि दत्वा पृथक्क्रिया विभागः कायः fat तत्पजरादीनं दायजिघक्षा मा मदिति । मिताक्षरा 699 किं गन्धपुष्पधूपदीपार्टद्नानि बाह्यणेभ्यो देयान्युत पित॒भ्य इति । तश्र ATA धेदरनन्यायोपलब्धेबोष्वणेन्यो Balt महा्णंवमकाशकारो मन्यते । Vase III. 1. 1081 700 निमन्त्रणं नाम देवपितृकायार्थोऽपत्याख्येथो नियोग इति स्मतिबन्दरिकाकारः | अभ्ये- षणपूर्वकमभ्युपगमरंपादनमिति मेधातिधेनहाणंवभकाशकारो । चतुर्वर्ग 711, 1 1131 ; vide also 7. 1151 for another reference to मह्मणैवप्रकाश, | 701 तथा च स्मृतिमहार्णवे आह युधः । AMER वये वसन्ते ब्रह्मण आत्मानमृपनाययेत्‌ | चतुग ° TII. 1. 11४ ; on pp. 183, 545 of the same only महूर्णव occurs, 26. Parijata $09 there was an ancient work called Parijata quoted by even some. of the earliest nibandhakaras. The Kalpataru several times quotes the views of a work called Parijata. The Prakasa and Parijata are frequently mentioned? together in the Kalpataru and the Vivada- ratnakara. The lattes regarded the Kalpataru, P4arijata, Halayudha and Prakasa as‘its most eminent predecessors.7°95 The Danaratna- kara7°* quotes several times the views.of Parijata on gifts. The Smrtisira of Harinatha sets out at length the order of succession to a sonless man according to the Parijata ( vide I. O. Ms. No. 3०, folio 134 ४ ). One of the striking opinions of the Parijata was that the widow ofa sonless man should raise offspring by mniyoga and give the wealth of the deceased to the son so born. From the above it appears that the Parijata was an independent work on vyavahara, dana and other topics. Being quoted by the Kalpataru it was earlier than 1125 A. D. and as it held views similar to those of Bhojadeva and Halayudha on the widow's rights and as itis not quoted by the Mit. or other earlier works it must be assigned to a date between 1000-1125 A.D. In I.L.R. 12 Cal. 348 at p. 356 the learned judges hold that the Parijata frequently cited as: an authority by the Vivadaratnikara is the Madanaparijata. But this is entirely wrong. The latter work, it will be shown ( vide sec. 93 ), was composed about 1375, while the Vivadaratnakara was composed about 1320 A. D. Hence the Parijata of the Vivada- ratnakara is the ancient work mentioned in the Kalpataru. 76. Govindaraja. The commentary of Govindaraja on the Manusmrti was published by Rao Saheb V. N. Mandlik anda portion of it was published by 708 कत्याथनः । Ropar चेव नम्नत्वपसिर्दूनम्‌ । पायो दासीसुताः कुर्युः wae ग्रहणं च यत्‌ ॥ नग्नत्वपरिमदने परिधापनम्‌ । Ae परिमर्दनं संवाहनमिति पारि- जात! । Beqas folio $68 ( 26087९68 8, College Transcript ) ; vide notes 649 and 690 above 08 Seaga वाप्यथ पारिजाते इलायथे वाप्यथवा प्रकारो | TaNTHETATS च Te हुधाति रत्नाकर एक एवं ॥ Verse at the end of वि.र "५ ऋव्वगभ्यस्तु दक्षिणामान्नम्‌ । भरूपालसागरपारिजातादयोण्येवम्‌ । द्‌नरत्नाकर folio Sos अथवा मुलापुरूषवदर्धं TA Meera दयादिति पारिजातः | Mid folio 28 b ( about कामधेनप्रदान ) 310 History of Dharmattstra Dr., Jolly in the Manutikasathgraha. In his commentary?s on Manu III. 247 and 248 he tells us that he has treated at greater length the subject of those verses in his own work called Smrti- manjari. पपिः in his comment on Manu IV. 212 twits Govindaraja with having explained ‘ugra’ in one way in his com- mentary on Manu and in a different way in his Mafijari. A Ms. of a portion of the Smrtimaiijari exists in the India Office (cat. Pp. 477 ). From these two works a brief account of the personal history of Govindaraja can be extracted. The colophons at the end of the Manutika describe Govindaraja as the son of bhatta Madhava. The first verse7°? of the Smrtimanyari and one at the end ( though some- what corrupt ) give the information that he was the son of Madhava and grand-son of Narayana and appears to have lived on the holy banks of the Ganges.7°° Those who like Sarvadhikari identify Govindaraja with Govindacandra, prince of Benares, are therefore entirely wrong since he was a Brahmanaand not a Ksatriya. The first verse7°? of his Manutika contains an obeisance to god ( or Siva ) and states that he had received the S4stra of Manu in an unbroken tradition of teacher and pupil and that he had examined previous commentaries of Manu. 105 “ साधितं चैतत्सविस्तरं स्मृतिमअर्यामूजपजिका्यां च । इह तु म्रन्थकारमयानन प्रतायते ( भरस्ती्येते ! ) ' om मनु 777. ४47 ; ‹ इति सपिण्डीकरणसावत्सारिकेपि स्म॒ति= मजजर्थामरजुपजिकायां विस्तरतो निरूप्येते * on मनु TIT. 248. 706 गोविम्द्राजो AWA राजानमुकवान्‌ | Ayre च शूद्रायां क्षन्नियोतयन्मभ्यधात्‌ ॥ 101 स्मृतिविरचितस्तसते्वाक्यर्दिरक्तिपरा्लीमशिलकललब्यालुसाथोमतेो ब्रतसंहतिम्‌ । अक्ि- खद्‌ चितां गोविन्दाख्यग्पिरं गरुतं भयाबुपचिततनुङ्ञीनामोदः स माधवनन्दनः ॥ स्मति- मञ्जरी ist verse. 108 स्मृतिमञजरी folio 150b ¢ स्व्वाहिनीपुद्धिनलान्छनलब्धकीरतिनारायणस्य TTT उञ्चिकाय । वाक्यावलीमसिलसण्चरणावतंसाषर ( त्ता ! ) गोविन्दराज FE माधवं इह भूभिः (! इह माधवमभूमिरायः ) ॥ › . 709 संसाराष्वगतागतङ्खमतुषापीयूषमीशां शने््यात्वानर्गलसंमदायगुरुतः प्राते मनोः शासने । रा भन्धरूदाशयाननुङतिं स्यार्यान्तराणानिमां टी शाजरुद्‌।श्थागुसरिणी TAT भ्यधात्‌ ॥ 76. Govindardja 311 The Smptis mentioned by him in the two works of his are given below.7"° Besides he mentions the Vayupurana (on Manu III. 232) and Purana in general (on Manu lI. 74 and 80). He frequently quotes the Grhyasatras, also the Bahvrcagrhyaparisista, the Yoga- stra. He says (on Manu 2. 23) that Mleccha countries like Andhra and others were not fit for performing sacrifices. He appears to have held like Medhatithi the view.that moksa was to be attained bya combination of jana and karma.7** As compared with the bhasya of Medhatithi his commentary is very concise. Kullaka largely drew upon Medhatithi and Govindaraja, mentions them hundreds of times, criticizes7"* both of them and _ particularly holds up Govindaraja to ridicule often enough.7"3 Kullaka notes that Govindaraja in opposition to Medhatithi and Bhojadeva arranged Manu 8. 181-184 differently ( putting 8. 182 as the last of those four verses ). In the printed edition there is no comment of Govindaraja on the verses of the 9th chapter from verse 72. Butit appears that the Dayabhaga had that part of the commentary, as it quotes the views of Govindaraja on the rights of the daughter’s son which could have appeared only on Manu IX. 130-136. A few words may now be said about the Smrtimaiijari, Mss. of which are rare. At the end of the India office Ms. a summary of the contents of the whole work is given ( for which see footnote 710 PTA, आपस्तम्ब, TATA, HIE, काश्यप; गानम, चतुर्विंशतिमत, देवल, नारद्‌, TWA, WETS, प्रचेतस्‌, FETAL, बृहस्पति, बोधायन, यम, याज्ञवल्क्यः वसिष्ठ, विष्णु, व्यास, शङ्क, शातातप, वृद्धशातातप, Ise, dad, सुमन्तु» हारीत. 711 On मनु 9. 28 गोविन्दराज ००५० ‹ ज्ञानकर्मसमुष्चयान्मोक्षावाततिः' 712 Note the following where गोविन्दराज ॥ criticlzedby कुलक, भन्‌, 1.1 22, 127 ; IIT. 11, 53, 127, 129, 285 ; IV. 7, 162; VI. 14, 79,86; VII. 94, 211; VITI. 37, 142-143, 184, 333 ; IX. 68, 136, 141, 162, 206; X. 3; XI. 82, 180; AIT, 86 713 On मनु II. 128, ITY. 50 and VIII. 87 गोविन्दराज is held upto special ridi- cule. हन्त means विशेषमविवृण्वता । ष्यक्तमङ्गीकतमृतो CICA यतेः ॥ on मनु UI. 50 ; स्वेषु तिष्ठद्ट्विति cated न विवक्षितम्‌ । इमां गोविग्द्राजस्य राजाच न द्वियामहे ॥ ०८ मनु ४. 104. It should be noted that the printed text of गोविन्दराज on मनु V. 104 is corrupt 88 1४ reads + स्वेषु तिष्ठत्सु विवक्षितम्‌ ’. 312 History of Dharmatistra below ).7"* It appears that the Smrtimafijari dealt with all principal topics of dharmasastra such as the sarhskaras, the daily duties viz: bath, sarndhya, brahmayajiia, the duties of the student, householder, the forest hermit, and the sarnyasin, the duties of the four vargas, pifts, the purifications of various materials, fcods forbidden and allowed, impurity on birth and death, sapindus and samancdakas, funeral rites, sraddha and its various details, prayaécitta. The ms. in the India office deals with the adbikari for prayascitta, the parsat (i.e. the assembly of learned men who are to determine what prayascitta is to be prescribed ), the means of atoning for sins and violations of religious duties, the prayaScittas for the mahapatakas (viz. the murder of a Brahmana, drinking wine, theft of gold, incest) and for other lesser and similar sins, meaning of the word prayascitta, prayascittas for killing men of Ksatriya, Vaigya and Sudra classes and for killing women, prayascittas for the killing of a cow and of various beasts and birds, prayas- cittas for eating forbidden or polluted food and for selling articles forbidden to be sold, secret prayasctttas. The India Ofhce Ms. which deals only with préyascittas contains 152 folios. This gives us an idea as to how extensive the whole work must have been 714 अस्य सुप्रतिपत्तये काण्डानि लिख्यन्ते । anal षरिभाषाकाण्डं गमाधानादि उप- नयनादि । संभ्योप।सनविधिः। अन्ये बह्यचारिधमा; । अभ्ययनाि । पुनरन्ये बह्वबारि- धर्माः । बह्ययज्ञावेधिः 1 विषे।हादिगहस्थधर्माः । शद्रधम; । वृत्युपदेशाः। स्नानविधिः यमनियमकाण्डम्‌ । पास्थानिकम्‌ । दानविधिः TNA: पोषितभतृंकाधमोः । द्वभ्य- ge: wey अचमननिमित्ताने द्विरा्चमननिमित्तानि आचमनापवाद्‌ाः। आच मनविर्धिः | अचैव प्रतिषेध्यः | कमण्डलचर्या । अन्यद्‌ाचमनगतम्‌ | NAYS? सवेठानि । प्रक्षालनादिशोचम्‌ । इति कायिकम्‌ । सोवर्णादिशोषं वेलादिशोचं तथा ernie भृम्यदि उदकादि अशुद्धयपवादाः | भोजनविधिः । मत्यामत््यपकरणम्‌ | मेतशुद्धिः । बाह्षणाशोचं BRIAN जननाशाचं, भनुज।तायाशोच॑ Aas सपिण्डसमानोदकत्वं बीजसंबन्भ्याया्चौचं देचान्तरमताक्चौ चमाचायौक्ञोचमनेकान्चोच- संनिपातायाश्ोचम्‌ । gone । अनुगमनाद्ाशोचम्‌ । उद्कृक्षियादिं पिण्डद्‌ानादे | अस्थिसंचयः | उद्कादिनिषेधः । स्यश्चा्ोचम्‌ । यमनियमाः । agate | कालादि । MANIA । भोजनीयाः । वर्षामिमन्त्रणादि ae: कालः । AAA SATA । ब्रह्णसंख्या । पुनरन्येतिकरैन्यता । अमादास्यादिशाक्लम्‌ । एको सपिण्डाकरणम्‌ । आष्दकि भात्श्राद्धम्‌ । अन्ये श्नाटुधर्माः । वृद्धिश्चादुम्‌ | वानप्रस्थ काण्डं मवजितकाण्डम्‌ । शृद्रधरमकाण्डम्‌ । अनुलोमपतिलोम । तद्स्युपदेश्चकाण्डम्‌ | प्ायश्ि्काण्डम्‌ । रै 28. Jtmutavithana 381 The Vyavaharamatrka as its very name implies deals with the elements of vyavahara (i.e. judicial procedure ). It speaks of the eighteen titles of law, the derivation of the word pradvivaka (judge ), the persons fitto be appointed judges, different grades of courts, duties of sabhyas, four stages of vyavahara, parvapaksa (plaint ), pratibha (surety ), blemishes in a plaint, uttara (reply of the defendent ), four kinds of uttara, blemishes in uttara, kriya ( proof or burden of proof), divine ( daivi ) and human ( manusi ) proof (viz: Ordeals, inference, witnesses, documents, possession), persons incompetent to be witnesses. Ordeals have not been dealt with by the author. The first verse of the work74" styles it Vyavahara- matrka. The last verse74? but one suggests the name Nyayamatrka which practically is a synonym of Vyavahara-matrka and the colophon at the end of a ms. in the Deccan College collection calls it Nydyaratnamalika. About twenty smrtikaras743 are mentioned in the Vyavahara- matrka. Katyayana, Brhaspati and Narada are the three smrtikaras most frequently quoted, nearly two-thirds of the quotations in the entire work being derived from them. Among the nibandhakaras the following are named :— Jitendriya, Diksita, ( p. 302 ), Bala ( p. 346, the same 25 Balaka ), Bhojadeva ( pp. 284, 305 ), Manjari- kara ( i. €, Govindaraja ), Yogloka, Visvaripa, Srikara ( pp. 292, 334 or Srikaramigra p. 342 ). About Visvarapa he 59544 ‘I have put forward this conclusion of the ancient writers, I have a en 14 व्यवहारमातकैषा सकलविवादेषु धर्मवादाभम्‌ । लोकद्वयेपि रक्षति सुतमिव शुश्षया माता ॥ 742 परिभद्रकुटोदुलः श्रीमान्‌ जीमूतवाहनः । विदुषां परितोषाय निर्ममे न्यायमातुकाम्‌ ॥ 743 They are उुशनस्‌, कात्यायन, बहत्कात्यायन, कौण्डिन्य, गोतम, नारद्‌, पितामह, प्रजा- पति, weet, ममु, यम, याज्ञवल्क्य, fee, यदटूसिष्ठ, विष्ण, व्यास, शङ्ख, FE शातातप, संवत, हारीत, | 4 मया प्राचां निबन्टुधृणामियं वापि ( वाणी ! ) पुरस्ता । वृषणं विश्वरूपादेर्नरारूत्य प्रप जितम्‌ ॥ Pp. 352. M. M. Chakravarti is not right in taking ( JASB 1915 p. 9 ) ' prfvam * to mean‘ eastern ‘in this verse, as in the previou Verse also जीमतवाह्न्‌ ‘refers ‘ toall munis’ and ‘ former works’ ‘ इति ©५ सकटलमनीनां भक्तिवाकयं विमृश्य स्वरसन इह aul गम्यते FIT † स TAHT. निबन्धो. (2b?) गृह्यतां बुद्धिमद्धिमवति यदि न जाङ्धं naar needy’ # 5. D. 41, ; $39 History of Dharmatastra refuted the objections of Vigvarapa and others and dealt with them at length.’ Yogloka and Srikara are generally quoted for being refuted and the former is frequently jeered at as ‘ tarkikarh-manya ' or ‘nava-tarkikarh-manya’. In this work Jimatavahana displays , great familiarity with the ancient dialectics. In some cases what the printed text exhibits745 as prose really constitutes verses, Sir Asutosh Mukerji is not accurate when he says in the preface that ‘ Jimatavahana refers to a number of jurists not mentioned by any other author, e. g. Jitendriya, Yogloka, Balaka, Visvarapa, Srikara and Manjarikara.’ It has been shown above that both Visvarapa _and Srikara have been mentioned by the Mit. which is certainly earlier than Jimatavahana and by a host of other writers who were either earlier than or contemporaries of Jimutavahana. The Vyavaharamatrka is quoted in the Vyavahartattva74* ( pp. 199, 214, vol. II ) and the Dayatattva of Raghunandana. The Dayabhaga isthe most famous of Jimttavahana’s works. In matters of Hindu law such as inheritance, partition, stridhana, re-union, it is of paramount authority in modern British Indian courts in Bengal, except in those cases where the Mitaksara is applicable. The names of more than a dozen commentators of it are known and Pandit Bharatacandra Siromani published it with seven commentaries ( 1863-1866 ). It was translated into English by Colebrooke. In many editions ( such as that of Jivananda ) it is divided into sections though there were no divisions in the original work. ‘The contents of the Dayabhaga are :— Definition of daya; father’s power over ancestral property ; partition of father’s and grand-father’s property ; division among brothers after their father’s death ; definition, classification and devolution of stridhana ; persons excluded from inheritance and partition on the ground of disabilities; property which is impartible (in its very nature or because it is self-acquired ); order of succession to one dying sonless; re-union, partition of coparcenery property concealed but discover- ed afterwards, indicia of partition. 745 e.g. on p. 348 the words ^ तस्मद्‌कशकुसुमसमान एव STOTT SEATS | मुक्त- दूरनिरस्तं लिशितादिभ्यो बलीयस्त्वम्‌ |¢ constitute an Ary&. Similarly on वी तस्मादस्मातरियमुकता मुक्ते प्रमाणता चान्तः । , , , ध्यवचनमान्रा- धीनस्वत्वकलतास्ममाणं सा ॥ › make two Aryas, 746 ‹ युक्ते्यायः स च ठोकष्यवहारः इति स्यवहारमातुका ' STEHT P- 199, vol. II. 78. JimUtavithana $28 Some of the peculiar doctrines of the Dayabhaga which are of fundamental importance and which sharply distinguish it from the Mit. are : sons have no interest in ancestral property by birth, sons can claim partition only after extinction of. theit father’s ownership ( 1. €, after his death or on his becoming patita or a samnyasin ) or partition can take place between father and sons if the father so desires, a widow succeeds to her husband’s interest on his death even if he be joint with his brother, the right to take a deceased person’s estate is regulated by the spiritual benefit con- ferred by the person claiming as heir ( by means of the offering of pindas )and not by the principle of consanguinity (asin the Mit.).747 Besides the smrtikaras,74® the Mahabharata and the Markandeya- purana the following authors are referred to by name in the Daya- bhaga :—Udgrahamalla, Govindaraja (as author of Manutika), Jiten- driya, Diksita, Balaka, Bhojadeva or Dharesvara, Visvarapa and Stikara. Udgrahamalla is referred to on the distribution of stridhana and it is said that Udgrahamalla (i. e. his view ) is throttled749 by the text of Devala. It appears therefore that Udgra- hamalla was not a smrti writer, but a nibandbakara. Diksita75° is credited with the view that, among daughters, those who have sons or are likely to have sons are preferred to those who are either barren, widowed or who give birth to daughters alone and the Dayabhaga approves of this yiew. There isone more writer who is referred to twice with great respect as Niravadyavidyoddyota. 747 Note the following ‹ तदेवं पितृस्वत्वापगम एकः कालोऽपरश्वानपगत एव पितु स्वाम्ये पितुरिश्छयति कालद्वयम्‌ । › दायभाग ?. 38 ; अतोऽविशेषणेव विभक्तत्वायनपेक्ष- थेवापु्रस्य मतैः रुत्सनधने पत्न्यधिकारो जितेन्द्ियोक्त आदरणीयः | P- 256 ; उप- SEA धनसंबन्धो मन्वादीनामभिमत इति मन्यते इति निरवयविद्योदुदयेतिन योतितो- यमधो विदहविरादरणीयः । ४. 396. 148 The स्म्रतिकार8 named are: उशनस्‌, कात्यायन, वृदधकात्यांयन, गोतम, दक्ष, देवल, नारद, WHA, SHA, मनु, TERY, यम, याज्ञवर्क्य, विष्णु, व्यास, शङ्खरिसित, वृदटुशातातप, हारीत, 9 एतावताष्ु्वा्मष्ठस्य देववचनं Tee: यथा सामान्यं पुञ्रकन्यानां मृतायां whet द्याम्‌ । दायभाग ?.191. 0 अतः पुश्रवती संमावितपुन्ना चाधिकारिणी । व्भ्यात्वविधवाततुदितृपसुतवादिना विपर्यस्त- TA पुनरनधिकारिण्येवेति दीक्षितमतमाद्रणीयम्‌ । दायभाग ए. 271. $24 History of Dharmaéastra Whether this is a mere description or title (‘the refulgence of whose learning is spotless”) or whether the author’s name was Uddyota and ntravadyvidya ( ‘ whose learning is spotless’ ) is an epithet, it is difficult to say. Fora correct knowledge of the origin and develop- ment of the theory of spiritual benefit propounded in the Dayabhaga, it would be extremely desirable to know who this writer was, as Jimutavahana tells us that that view was brilliantly set forth by Nirava- dyavidyoddyota. The same writer is also quoted on the well known verse of Yajnavalkya ‘bhirya pitamahopatta &c.,’ which is the sheet-anchor of Vijiianesvara’s theory about the son’s rights by birth in ancestral family property.75' Jimatavahana gives very little information about himself. In the colophons of his works he is described as Paribhadriya Maha- mahopadhyaya and at the end of the Vyavaharamatyka (vide note 742 above ) he tells us that he was born of the Paribhadra family ( kula ).7> It is said that this name of the family still survives in the Parihal or Pari Gai, a section of Radhiya Brahmanas ( Ghose’s Hindu Law, 3rd edition, pp. xvi-xvmr and JASB 1915 p. 320). It is also said that Edumisra in his Kulakarika tells us that Jimdta- vahana was chief judge in the reign of Visvak-sena of Bengal and that he was 9th in descent from Niarayanabhatta, one of the five Brahmanas brought by Adistra. The information supplied by the match-makers of Bengal is, as shown above, not worth reliance, unless corroborated by independent evidence. It is also said that for fourteen generations the Brahmanas of Pirigrama have becn degraded and so Jimitavahana would not have paraded the fact that he was Paribhadriya if at the time when he wrote his subcaste had been degraded ( Intro. to Kalaviveka p. णा). The fact that Jimutavahana was a native of Radha is testified by his statement in the Kalaviveka that Agastya ( Canopus ) rose in Ujjayini 751 अन्तु याह्ञवल्कीयवचनं-मृया . . . मयोः-तस्य निरवधयविदयोदूयोतेन थोतितस्तश्वतो- मर्थः । यत्र हयोधान्रोर्जवित्पितृकयोरपराघ्षमागयोरेकः Taye विनशोन्थो जीवति अनन्तरं पिता मृतस्तत्र TT एव तद्धनं प्राभोत्यतिसंनिकर्षत्‌ । तदथं सवृशं स्वाभ्यमिति वचनम्‌ । p. 50. 752 In some editions of the दायभाग, the last verse is पारिमघ्रकूलोद्ुतः श्रीमाप्‌ जीमूतवाहनः | दायभागं TEA विदुषां trae ॥ 78, Jimiitavibana $38 when four days of the month of Bhadrapada remained, but that in Radha Agastya rose when seven days of the month were yet to run.?53 Extremely divergent views have been held as to the date of Jimatavahana. He has been assigned to various dates from the 11th to the 16th century. In L. R. 41 I. A. at ए. 298 it is said by their Lordships of the Privy Council that the Mit. was earlier by five centuries than Jimitavahana. Dr. Jolly (९२. u. 9. p. 37 ) assigns him to the 15th century. For astatement of the various dates and their examination the article of M. M. Chakravarti in JASB. for 1915, pp. 321-327 and Mr. Panchanan Ghosh’s learned article in 26 Calcutta Law Journal ( journal portion p. 17 ff. ) may be consulted. Since Jimitavahana mentions Dhare- évara Bhojadeva and Govindaraja, he cannot be placed earlier than the last quarter of the r1th century. Since he is quoted by Sala pani, Vacaspati-migra and Raghunandana, he cannot be later than the middle of the 15th century. The Kalaviveka furnishes impor- tantdata. Ona ms. of the Kalviveka there is a note made about the birth-date of the son of a certain Ghatakasirhha with the horo- scope of the child. The year specified therein is sake 1417, i. €. 1495 A.D. It follows from this that the Ms. itself must have been copied .ometime before this and the original work must be much earlier still. So the Kalaviveka cannot be placed at any rate later than about 1400 A. D. In the Kalaviveka Jimuatavahana tells us that his predecessor Andhuka7s4 exhibited a certain astronomical matter in Sake 952 (i. 6, 1030 A, D. ) and that he declared an intercalary month in Sake 955, Similarly Jimutavahana expatiates upon several755 minute astro- 153 arene राडादिषु सप्तविनावशिष्टे भाद्रे तस्योदयः । उजयिन्यां च दिनिचतुष्टयावरिषटे । त्ाटविवेक P- 290 ; vide p. 291 also. ate एव ante हापश्चाशव्भिकनवदतसंख्याते weet अन्धुक विरदरितवान्‌ | काटषिवेक 7, 51; तथाहि पञ्चपञ्चशदधिकनवशतसंख्यके WES तुलासंकान्तिरमा- वास्यायां मूता , , . अन्धुकेन लिक्षितः । कालविवेकं P- 119. "95 ननु सुयोषन्द्रमसोरभिन्नरारिस्थत्वेपि अमावास्या श्यते । तथा च चतर्दशो्तरसदच्र VEIN Meer रवो Harare चतुर्दशी परलीऽछेयानक्षत्रं सपदण्डाम्‌ परतो मधा $26. History of Dharmatastra 1071641 and astrological details which were observed in the Jake years 1013 and 1014 (1.