History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c4.11

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.