Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s21.7

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s21.7

Language
English

v1.c6.s21.7

The Yājñavalkyasmṛti contains (in the Nirṇayasāgara ed. of 1892) 1010 verses, while the Trivandrum edition with the commentary of Viśvarūpa contains 1003 verses and Aparārka gives 1006 (Ānandāśrama edition). The difference in the number is mostly due to the fact that Viśvarūpa in the first section on ācāra omits five verses that occur in the Mitākṣarā.³¹⁰ As regards one of them (the verse 'rathyākardamatoyāni' I. 197 according to the Mit.) Viśvarūpa notices it and says that some read it after the verse "mukhajā vipruṣā" and that it adds nothing to what precedes. Aparārka explains that verse. In the second section on vyavahāra Viśvarūpa reads verses³¹¹ which do not exist in the Mitākṣarā nor in Aparārka. On the other hand Viśvarūpa seems to doubt the authenticity of the well-known verse on re-union and reads it also differently³¹² (anyodaryasya saṁsṛṣṭī). Not only this but in some cases the arrangement of verses is not the same in both Viśvārūpa and the Mit. For example, verses 14-29 of the prāyaścitta 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 ā dantajanmanaḥ &c.) which is wanting in Viśvarūpa and is also not commented upon by Aparārka. Viśvarūpa adds two half verses,³¹³ which do not occur in the Mit. and Aparārka. There is further a good deal of variance in the readings adopted by Viśvarūpa 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 both.³¹⁴ But Medhātithi favours the reading of Viśvarūpa.³¹⁵ Viśvarūpa reads "asvattaṁ lokavidviṣṭam" (I. 155) and notices a reading "asvantam", while the Mit. reads "asvargyam loka·&c.". Both the Mit. and Aparārka read "pitā pitāmaho bhrātā &c." (I. 63), while Viśvarūpa reads "pitā mātāmaho bhrātā", remarks that "mātāmaha" is put in earlier as a guardian for marriage for metrical reasons and then notices "pitā pitāmaho bhrātā" as a various reading. Even in the days of Viśvarūpa there were various readings in Yāj. (*Vide* com. on I. 1, 2, 51, II. 119, 179 etc.).

Linked texts (3)