History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s21.14
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s21.14
- Language
- English
v1.c6.s21.14.1
The Agnipurāṇa affords an excellent check for the consideration of the text of the Yājñavalkyasmṛti. A good-sized monograph will be required to deal exhaustively with the questions raised by the comparison of the vyavahāra portion of the Agnipurāṇa with Yājñavalkya's vyavahāra-kāṇḍa. I shall only briefly examine the materials and state the conclusions at which I have arrived. We know that Viśvarūpa, the first extant commentator of Yāj., flourished about 800-825 A. D. The author of the Mitākṣarā flourished about 250 years later. Interesting results follow by a comparison of the text that these two commentators had before them with the Agnipurāṇa. I shall select chap. 256 of the Agnipurāṇa for a detailed examination. It contains 36 verses which all occur in Yāj. II. (verses 118-153 of Tri. ed. and verses 114-149 of the Mit. ). It is found that the Agnipurāṇa agrees with the text of 12 verses word for word as contained in Viśvarūpa and 19 verses as contained in the Mit. Viśvarūpa puts three verses between the two verses ‘pitṛdravyāvināśena &c’ and ‘kramādabhyāgataṁ dravyaṁ’, while the Mit. brings the two verses together. Agnipurāṇa agrees with Viś. In several cases the readings of the Agnipurāṇa agree with Viśvarūpa’s text and not with that of the Mit. For example, Agni. reads ‘kāryāḥ patnyaḥ samāṁśikāḥ’ with Viś. (119), reads ‘bhūryā . . . dravyam-eva vā . . . putrasya cobhayoḥ’ with Viś. (124), reads ‘pitṛdravyāvināśena’ (and not ‘°vyāvirodhena’ as Mit. does) with Viś.
v1.c6.s21.14.2
(122), reads ‘dadyāt-cāpaharec-cāṁśaṁ’ with Viś. (142 b), reads ‘patitas-tatsutaḥ klībaḥ’ with Viś. (144 a), reads ‘aprajāyāmatītāyām’ with Viś. (148). The Agnipurāṇa however in a far larger number of cases agrees with the readings of the Mit. Agni (256. 8) reads with the Mit. (122) ‘vibhākteṣu suto jātaḥ savarṇāyāṁ vibhāgabhāk,’ Agni. (256. 10) reads ‘mātāpyaṁśaṁ samaṁ haret’ with the Mit. (123), while Viś. (127) reads ‘mātāpyaṁśaṁ samāpnuyāt.’ Viśvarūpa’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 a son). Agni (256. 12) reads ‘catustri-dvyeka-bhāgāḥ syuḥ’ and ‘viḍjāstu dvyekabhāginaḥ’ with the Mit. (125); Agni. (256. 21) reads ‘-rdhabhāgikaṁ’ with the Mit. (134). Agni. (256. 27) reads ‘andho’cikitsyarogādyā’ with the Mit. (140), while Viś. (144) reads ‘rogī ca.’ The reading of the Mit. makes provision by the word ‘ādya’ for other persons like deaf-mutes mentioned in other smṛtis as not entitled to inherit, while Viś. has to put a forced interpretation on ‘ca’ as including such persons. The Agni (256.33) reads ‘vyayaṁ dadyāc-ca sodayaṁ’ with the Mit. (146), while Viś. (150) reads ‘dāpyaś-ca sodayaṁ’. Agni (256. 36) reads ‘vibhāgabhāvanā jñeyā gṛha-kṣetraiś-ca yautakaiḥ’ with the Mit. (149), while Viś. (153) reads ‘°bhāvanādeyagṛha-kṣetrakayautakaiḥ’. Here the former reading is easy and gives a complete sentence. With Viś. we have to separate ‘°bhāvanā’ and ‘ādeya &c.’.
v1.c6.s21.14.3
Besides no predicate (like jñeyā or kāryā) is expressly mentioned in the verse if we take the reading of Viś. and the ‘ka’ in ‘kṣetraka’ is a redundancy. We find that the tendency of the readings of the Mit. is to smooth down harsh or involved constructions and that the Agnipurāṇa presents most of the changes in the text found in the Mit. but not found in Viś. In the same direction points the fact that Agni (256. 35) reads ‘na dattam strīdhanam yasyai’ with the Mit. (148) and not ‘yasyā’ as Viś. (152) does, as ‘yasyai’ is grammatically more regular than ‘yasyāḥ’ with the form ‘dattam’. But as against this we may note that both Viś. and Agni read ‘aprajāyāmatītāyām’, while the Mit. reads ‘atītāyāmaprajasi’. The reading ‘aprajasi’ is correct according to Pāṇini (V. 4. 122) and not ‘aprajāyām’. Therefore the conclusion that follows is that the text of Yāj. preserved in the Agnipurāṇa is intermediate between the text of Viśvarūpa and that of the Mitākṣarā. As Viśvarūpa flourished about 800-825 A. D., the Agnipurāṇa represents a text of Yājñavalkya current somewhat later i. e. about 900 A. D. In my ‘History of Sanskrit Poetics’ (pp. III-V) I established, from the fact that the extant Agnipurāṇa quotes Daṇḍin and Bhāmaha 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 vyavahāra discussed above.
v1.c6.s21.14.4
It is no doubt true that the Agni presents some readings that are found neither in Viś. nor in the Mit. For example, it reads (256. 4) ‘tābhya ṛte ’rpayet’, while both Viś. and Mit. read ‘tābhya ṛte’nvayaḥ’. It is probable that this is an error of the copyists or the reading may be due to the difficulty of understanding the meaning of ‘anvayaḥ’ there. Agni reads (256. 5) ‘svayam-arjayet’ for ‘svayam-arjitam’ (of Viś. and Mit.), and ‘jātopi dāsyāṁ śūdrasya’ (256. 20) for ‘°śūdreṇa’ (of Viś. and Mit.). A detailed examination of the other chapters on vyavāhāra will yield the same results. But it cannot be undertaken here. A few examples may however be cited. Viś. (II. 167) reads ‘pālo yeṣāṁ ca te mocyā daiva- rājapariplutah’, Agni (257. 14) ‘pālo yeṣām tu te mocyā daivarājapariplutāḥ’, while Mit. (163) reads ‘pālo yeṣām na te ... tāḥ’. Similarly Viś. (II. 179) and Agni (257. 26) read ‘svakuṭumbāvirodhena deyam’ while the Mit. (175) reads ‘svam kuṭumbāvirodhena’. Viś. (II. 203) reads ‘galat-sabhikavṛddhistu’, while both Agni (257. 49) and Mit. (199) read ‘glahe śatikavṛddhestu’, which certainly is an easier reading. Agni 258. 45 occurs in Mit. (255), but is wanting in Viśvarūpa. Yāj. II. 228 in Viś. becomes in the Mit. verse 263, Agni. following the order of Viśvarūpa.