Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c4: Additions and Corrections

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c4

Language
English

Additions and Corrections

v1.c4.1

( **N. B. Errors in printing that can be easily detected have been passed over** ).

v1.c4.2

Sec. 4 pp. 12-20 *The Dharmasūtra of Gautama.* Mr. Batakrishna Ghose ( in I. H. Q. vol. III for 1927, p. 607 ff ) has an exhaustive note on the mutual relations of Gautama, Baudhāyana and Āpastamba. He holds that Gautama is not the oldest extant author, that Āp. and Gautama stand in the same relation as Manu and Yājñavalkya, that Baudhāyana-dharmasūtra is not older than Āpastambadharmasūtra, that the reference to the views of some in Gautama 15. 30 may easily be to Āp. 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 sūtra of Gautama has been in some places revised may be admitted ; but that Gautama as an author on dharma preceded Āpastamba's work cannot be denied. There is nothing of chronological value so far as Gautama is concerned in Āpastamba's rejection of the view of Śvetaketu that even a married man should continue Veda-study. That Āpastamba says nothing about mixed castes is on a par with his silence as to *niyoga* and the secondary sons. Āpastamba knew the lowest castes such as Cāṇḍāla and Paulkasa and Vaiṇa ( Āp. Dh. S. II. 1. 2. 6 ). As to beef-eating allowed by Āpastamba, vide p. 45 of text and Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa ( S. B. E. vol. 26 p. 11 where beef-eating is not allowed to a dīkṣita ). Doctors of law were not agreed on many points of dharma and hence no certain chronological conclusion about individual authors can be drawn merely from their views on certain points. It is not correct to say as Mr. Ghose does that Āpastamba knows no fines for crimes. Āpastamba does say that in case of dispute between litigants elders were to decide, that in case of doubt they were to decide by inference 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. 11. 29. 5-8 ). This shows that fines were not unheard of in Āpastamba's days and if he omits a detailed statement the reason must be sought for elsewhere than in his being prior to all dharmasūtras. Fines for crimes are as old as the Taittirīya Saṁhitā II. 6. 10. 2.

v1.c4.3

Sec. 9 p. 56 l. 18 read ‘note 41’ for ‘note 46.’

v1.c4.4

Sec. 10 p. 60 ll. 25-27. After the words ‘the sūtra is in close relation to one of the oldest schools of the Yajurveda, viz. Kaṭha’ the following should be added ‘Vācaspati in his Śrāddhakalpa alias Pitṛbhaktitaraṅgiṇī says that the sūtra of Viṣṇu is meant for students of the Kaṭhaśākhā, as Viṣṇu is a sūtrakāra of that Śākhā’; **यच्चाग्निं परिस्तीर्य पौष्णं श्रपयित्वा पूषा गा इति विष्णुस्मृतावुक्तं तत्कठशाखिपरं तस्य तत्सूत्रकारत्वात्** (ms. of **पितृभक्ति°** in the India Office, folio 17a (I. O. cat. p. 556 No. 1730). The sūtra referred to is **विष्णुधर्मसूत्र** 86. 9.

v1.c4.5

Sec. 11 p. 71 Vide Ind. Ant. vol. 25 for 1896 pp. 147-48 for an account of the ms. of the Hārītadharmasūtra found by the late Pandit Vaman Śāstri Islampurkar.

v1.c4.6

Sec. 13 p. 84 l. 10 read ‘110’ for ‘108’.

v1.c4.7

Sec. 14 *The Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya.* There is a perennial stream of articles and works inspired by the Arthaśāstra. 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 ‘suruṅgā’ occurring in the Arthaśāstra and its connection with the Greek word ‘syrinx’; (vide I. H. Q. vol. I. pp. 429-432) and holds that the Arthaśāstra must be later than the 2nd century B. C. The same scholar contributes a note on ‘Pāṇḍyakavāṭa’ occurring in the Arthaśāstra II. 11 (in I. H. Q. vol.IV p. 778) and concludes from comparison with Bṛhat-saṁhitā and other works that the list of countries cannot be earlier than 6th century A. D. I am glad to note that the veteran *savant* Dr. Jolly (in ‘Zeitschrift für Indologie and Iranistik’ for 1927 pp. 216-221) approves of my view that the original name was Kauṭilya and not Kauṭalya. In the Nidhanpur plate of Bhāskarvarman (E. I. vol. 19 p. 245, at p. 248) donees of Kauṭilya-gotra are mentioned. The verse in the second Act of the Mālatīmādhava of Bhavabhūti (**गुणापेक्षाशून्यं कथमिदममुष्यान्तमथवा कुतोपत्यस्नेहः कुटिलनयनिष्णातमनसाम् ।**) contains a hit at the name Kauṭilya and his teaching. Mr. E. H. Johnston contributes in the J R A S for 1929 pp. 77-102 an article on ‘two studies in the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya,’ wherein he examines the works of Aśvaghoṣa, the Laṅkāvatāra and the Jātakamālā and holds that the Arthaśāstra is not much earlier than Aśvaghoṣa and not later than 250 A. D. It is gratifying to see that from the untenable position of relegating the Arthaśāstra to the 3rd century A. D., western scholars are receding to the first century of the Christian era. Prof. Benoy Kumar Sarkar contributes an appreciative and lengthy review of Dr. Meyer's work ‘Das altindische Buch vom Welt-&c’ in the Indian Historical Quarterly for 1928 pp. 348-383. Dr. Meyer has brought out another work ‘on Hindu Law-books and their relation with one another and with Kauṭilya’ (über das Wesen der altindischen Rechtsschriften &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 Smṛtis and Nārada one of the earliest, places Nārada several centuries before the Christian era, regards the compiler of the Yājñavalkyasmṛti as a stupid brāhmaṇa. He is blissfully ignorant of the references to Gautama occurring in the Tantravārtika, which I collected in my paper on ‘the Tantravārtika and the dharmaśāstra literature’ (JBBRAS vol. I new series for 1925 pp. 66-67). He propounds the absurd theory that the Brāhmaṇas 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 Mānavadharmasūtra, the non-existence of a floating mass of verses on which authors of dharmaśāstra could draw. Mr. Batakrishna Ghose submits Dr. Meyer’s work to a scholarly and trenchant criticism in I. H. Q. for 1928 vol. IV. pp. 570-592. Prof. D. R. 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 ‘salaries and allowances in Kauṭilya’.

v1.c4.8

Sect. 15 pp. 105-107 *Vaikhānusadharmapraśna*. Dr. Eggers recently published (Göttingen, 1929) his work 'Das Dharmasūtra der Vaikhānasa', which is reviewed in JRAS for 1929 pp. 916-918.

v1.c4.9

Sec. 29 pp. 129-131 *Sumantu*. For a dharmasūtra of Sumantu, vide Madras Tri. cat. of Sanskrit mss. (1919-1922) pp. 5160-62.

v1.c4.10

Sec. 31 p. 154 read 'In other places' for 'In another places'.

v1.c4.11

Sec. 34 pp. 170-175 *Yājñavalkyasmṛti*. Dr. Hans Losch writes a monograph on '*Die Yājñavalkyasmṛti un Beitrag zur Quellen-kunde des Indischen Rechts*' (Leipzig 1927). His conclusions may be briefly summarised as follows: (I) the text of Yājñavalkya that we have and that is commented upon is not the original, but is enlarged with interpolations such as Vināyakaśānti and Grahaśānti (which are borrowed from Agnipuraṇa chap. 266 and 164 respectively by the compiler of Yāj. Smṛti), the section on rājadharma (which is a versified copy of ideas contained in arthaśāstra literature), verses 60-205 of the third chapter (of Yāj.) : (II) the 2nd book of Yāj. (on vyavahāra) is a later addition corresponding to an older redaction of the Agnipuraṇa; (III) that the first and 3rd books of Yāj. are a recast of an ancient text which has been better preserved in the Garuḍapurāṇa. I have shown in my history of Sanskrit Poetics that the Agnipuraṇa was compiled about 900 A. D. and in this book it has been shown that the Garuḍapurāṇa must have been compiled about the same time, that it summarises Parāśarasmṛti and that it presents a text of Yāj. which is intermediate between that of Viśvarūpa and that of the Mitākṣarā. Dr. Loesh's work adduces no proofs that would shake these conclusions. I am pleased to find that Mr. Chintaharana Chakravarti holds (JASB for 1928 vol. 24 p. 467) that the *nīti* portion of Garuḍapurāṇa belongs to the 9th or 10th 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. Q. for 1929 pp. 367-375). Mr. Batakrishna Ghose holds that vyavahāra did not originally form part of the Yājñavalkya smṛti on the ground that otherwise it is very difficult to explain its absence in the Garuḍapurāṇa. But this is quite unconvincing. We have no sure criterion for judging on what bases the eclectic purāṇas (Agnipurāṇa and Garuḍapurāṇa) proceeded. But in the case of the Garuḍapurāṇa the omission of the vyavahāra section is easily explicable in several ways. The Garuḍapurāṇa was concerned more with purely religious matters and so omitted the rather secular chapter on vyavahāra. One might ask, why did the Agnipurāṇa omit the first and third kāṇḍas of Yājñavalkya if they existed in its day. One may with equal logic argue that those two kāṇḍas did not exist in the Yājñavalkya smṛti when the Agnipurāṇa was compiled.

v1.c4.12

P. 181 The late Sir Ramakrishna Bhandarkar outdid even Western scholars in assigning Yājñavalkya to a date not earlier than the 6th century A. D. In his work ‘Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism’ (p. 148) the learned doyen of modern Sanskrit studies in Western India holds that the worship of Gaṇeśa is a late one, as it is not mentioned in the Gupta inscriptions. The veteran scholar did not notice the points brought out in my book (such as the mention of nakṣatras from Kṛttikā). He is willing to assign Amarasiṁha to the 5th or 6th century A. D. (ibid. p. 45). The great lexicographer mentions Vināyaka and his synonyms (such as ekadanta &c), but the words Mita, Sammita that are given as the appellations of Vināyaka in Yāj. are conspicuous by their absence in Amara's lexicon. Hence the conclusion is that Amara wrote centuries after Yājñavalkya and that Vināyaka worship had taken a complexion before Amara flourished that was very different from what it was in Yājñavalkya's day.

v1.c4.13

Mita and Sammita occur as names of Maruts in the Taittirīya Saṁhitā.

v1.c4.14

P. 186 That गजच्छाया and व्यतीपात had nothing to do with 'rāśis' follows from the following. ‘योगो मघात्रयोदश्यां कुञ्जरच्छायसंज्ञितः । भवेन्मघायां संस्थे च शाशिन्यर्के करे स्थिते ॥ (quoted in कृत्य रत्नाकर p. 319 as from ब्रह्मपुराण); श्रवणाश्विधनिष्ठाऽर्द्रनागदैवतमस्तके । यद्यमा रविबारेण व्यतीपातः स उच्यते ॥ quoted in प्रायश्चित्ततत्त्व of रघुनन्दन as from बृहन्मनु.

v1.c4.15

Sec. 38 pp. 213-221 *Kātyāyana.* Mr. Narayana Chandra Bandopadhyaya has recently published (Calcutta 1927) about 800 verses of Kātyāyana on vyavahāra culled from five *nibandhas.* In the Hindu Law Quarterly recently started in Bombay I am editing a reconstruction of Kātyāyana on vyavahāra (reconstructed text from twenty *nibandhas*, 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.

v1.c4.16

Sec. 38 p. 215 read ‘Manu’ for Bhṛgu’ in l. 11.

v1.c4.17

Sec. 39 pp. 221-223 *Aṅgiras.* In the 2nd Act of the Mālatīmādhava (p. 104 of Bhandarkar’s edition) we have a prose quotation from Aṅgiras ‘गीतश्चायमर्थोङ्गििरसा यस्यां मनश्चक्षुषोर्निबन्धस्तस्यामृद्धिरिति’. In the Āpastambagṛhya (I. 3. 19-21) this is cited without name as the view of some ‘बन्धुशीललक्षणसंपन्नामरोगामुपयच्छेत । बन्धुशीललक्षणसंपन्नः श्रुतवानरोग इति वरसंपत् । यस्यां मनश्चक्षुषोर्निबन्धस्तस्यामृद्धिर्नेतरदाद्रियेतेत्येके’. It is not likely that Bhavabhūti who was a great scholar would commit a mistake and it is extremely probable that he had a sūtra of Aṅgiras before him.

v1.c4.18

Sec. 44 pp. 226-227 *Pitāmaha.* Dr. Karl Scriba collected together from several *nibandhas* about 200 verses of Pitāmaha and published them with translation (Die Fragmente des Pitāmaha, Leipzig, 1902) on the eight constituents of karaṇa (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.

v1.c4.19

Sec. 64 pp. 275-279 *Dhāreśvara Bhojadeva.* In the Madras Tri. Cat. of Sanskrit Mss. for 1919-1922 p. 4562 No 3078 there is a ms of Bhujabalanibandha by Bhojarāja in 18 chapters on astrological matters in relation to vratas, marriage &c.

v1.c4.20

In the Kṛtyaratnākara of Caṇḍeśvara quotations from a Kṛtyasamuccaya of Bhūpāla or Bhūpālasamuccaya are cited (at pp. 278, 289, 449, 461, 496 &c). It appears that this is entirely a different work from the Rājamārtāṇḍa and the Bhujabalabhīma.

v1.c4.21

Sec. 68. p. 285. l. 20 read ‘Misarumisra’ for ‘Harinātha’.

v1.c4.22

Sec. 71. pp. 294-296 *Kāmadhenu*. That Bhoja was not the author of the Kāmadhenu follows from the following words of the कृत्यरत्नाकर (p. 156) 'एतानि वाक्यानि अलवणतृतीयाव्रतबोधकवाक्यमध्ये भूपालकामधेनुकल्पतरुषु लिखितानि.' At p. 30 of the same work the कामधेनु is spoken of as equal in authority to the Rājā (राजतुल्ययोगक्षेम). These references show that the Kāmadhenu was not regarded by Caṇḍeśvara as the work of Bhūpāla (or Bhojadeva); other passages of the Kṛtyaratnākara where Gopāla, Kalpataru, and Bhūpāla are spoken of in the same breath indicate that Gopāla was as great an authority as the Kalpataru; and knowing as we do that Caṇḍeśvara looked upon Kāmadhenu, Kalpataru, Pārijāta, Prakāśa and Halāyudha as his best authorities, it follows that Gopāla was the author of the Kāmadhenu. Vide कृत्यरत्नाकर pp. 277, 443 (गोपालभूपालकल्पतरुपारिजातेषु तु).

v1.c4.23

Sec. 72 pp. 298-299 *Halāyudha*. There is a Ms. of a work called Paṇḍitasarvasva in the Madars Tri. cat. of Sanskrit mss. for 1919-22 p. 5165. In the manuscript itself there is no reference to the author or his parentage. It is a large work and deals with वर्णाश्रमाचार, दैवतिथिनिरूपण, उपवास, शौच, अशौच, श्राद्ध, ज्योतिःशास्त्र, विवाहादिसंस्कार, दान, प्रायश्चित्त, प्रतिष्ठा, स्त्रीधर्म, दिव्य, अभक्ष्यविचार, शुद्धि. From the style it seems more likely that it is not the work of Halāyudha.

v1.c4.24

In the Ekādaśītattva (Jivananda vol. II p. 51) and Śuddhitattva (Jivananda vol II p. 327) Halāyudha is said to be the author of Saṁvatsarapradīpa.

v1.c4.25

Sec. 73 pp. 301-306 *Bhavadevabhaṭṭa*.

v1.c4.26

There was another work of Bhavadevabhaṭṭa called Sambandha-viveka. This work is mentioned in the Saṁskāratattva (Jivananda vol I p. 890) and in the Vivāhatattva (vol. II p. 143).

v1.c4.27

Sec. 74 pp. 306-308 *Prakāśa*.

v1.c4.28

The Vivādaratnākara and other Ratnākaras of Caṇḍeśvara generally refer to Prakāśa only, but sometimes Caṇḍeśvara speaks of Smṛtimahārṇavaprakāśa e. g. on p. 326 of Kṛtyaratnākara we have 'जाबालमत्स्यपुराणवाक्यपरामर्शात्क्षिप्रामि-सकलपुत्रैः साग्निभिश्चेतरपुत्रैरेकोद्दिष्टं कार्यमिति स्मृतिमहार्णवप्रकाशकार इति

v1.c4.29

कल्पतरौ लिखितमन्यैश्चानुमोदितं तल्लघु. This also shows that Smṛtimahārṇavaprakāśa was a work referred to by the Kalpataru and so earlier than 1100 A. D.

v1.c4.30

Sec. 87 pp. 354-359 *Hemādri*. In the Marathi Quarterly of the Bhārata-itihāsa-saṁśodhaka-maṇḍala, vol. X part 2 p. 84, Mr. Y. K. Deshpande quotes from a work called Bhānuvijaya of the Mahānubhāva sect passages wherein Hemādri is charged with having been won over by Turks (Mahomedans) and with having brought about the imprisonment of Bhānubhaṭṭa alias Bhāskara Kaviśvara Vyāsa (a Mahānubhāva saint) ‘जरि करावा रणकन्दन । हेमाद्रि तुर्का लागले पण । दिल्लीश्वरें देवोनि धन । मंत्री या वश्य केला ॥ भानुगुणीं असाहणेपणें । अहिता प्रेरिलें दुर्जनें । तुर्का कांई असे आंगवणें । हेमाद्रियेची बंधाविलें ॥’.

v1.c4.31

But in the absence of other corroborative evidence hardly any reliance can be placed on this charge, as it might have been levelled at Hemādri in revenge for his imprisoning a leader of a dissenting sect like that of the Mahānubhāvas.

v1.c4.32

P. 359 In the Śivadigvijaya (printed at Baroda in śake 1817) at p. 442 Hemāḍapanta (Hemādri) is credited with having brought from Laṅkā (Ceylon) in śake 1193 (1271-2 A. D.) the ‘Piśācca lipi’ (Moḍī script).

v1.c4.33

P. 368 l. 16 Read ‘contemplate’ for ‘complete’.

v1.c4.34

P. 398 foot note 969 Read ‘अलभत सुनयं’ for ‘अलभत तनयं.’

Linked texts (21)