Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s23: 36. The Nārada-smṛti

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s23

Language
English

Contents

36. The Nārada-smṛti

v1.c6.s23.1

There are two versions of Nārada on Vyavahāra, a smaller and a larger one. The smaller version was translated by Dr. Jolly in 1876 (Trübner & Co., 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 5th title 'abhyupetyāśuśrūṣā' by extracts from the commentary of Asahāya as revised by Kalyāṇabhaṭṭa, who was encouraged in the task of revision by Keśavabhaṭṭa.

v1.c6.s23.2

From verse 22 of the same title the printed text is the same as the smaller version. A verse quoted as Nārada’s by Kṣīrasvāmin is not found in the larger version but is found in the smaller version.³⁵³ An ancient Ms. of Nārada 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 it is not authentic. One of the colophons of the Nepalese Ms. describes it as ‘iti Mānava-dharmaśāstre Nāradaproktāyāṁ saṁhitāyāṁ &c.’ This corroborates what was said above (pp. 149, 156) as to the close connection between Manu and Nārada.

v1.c6.s23.3

³⁵³ क्षीरस्वामी on the word वृषल in अमरकोश quotes the verse वृषो हि भगवान्धर्मस्तस्य यः कुरुते लवम् । which is मनु 8. 16 and शान्तिपर्व 9. 15.

v1.c6.s23.4

Nārada is not mentioned by Yājñavalkya in the list of ancient writers on dharma, nor does Parāśara mention him. Viśvarūpa however quotes a verse of Vṛddha-Yājñavalkya (on Yāj. I. 4-5), where Nārada is the first among ten expounders of dharma enumerated therein (vide note 219).

v1.c6.s23.5

The printed Nārada contains three introductory chapters on the principles of judicial procedure (Vyavahāra-mātṛka) and on the judicial assembly (sabhā). Then the following titles of law are dealt with one after another:—ṛṇādāna (recovery of debts), upanidhi (deposit, lending, bailment), saṁbhūya-samutthāna (partnership), dattāpradānika (gifts and resumption thereof), abhyupetya-aśuśrūṣā (breach of contract of service), vetanasya-anapākarma (non-payment of wages), asvāmivikraya (sale without ownership), vikrīyāsaṁpradāna (non-delivery after sale), krītānuśaya (rescission of purchase), samayasyānapākarma (violation of conventions of corporations, guilds &c.), sīmābandha (settlement of boundaries); strīpuṁsayoga (marital relation); dāyabhāga (partition and inheritance); sāhasa (offences in which force is the principal element) such as homicide, robbery, rape &c.; vākpāruṣya (defamation and abuse) and daṇḍapāruṣya (hurt of various kinds); prakīrṇaka (miscellaneous wrongs). The appendix deals with theft, though a few remarks are made on that topic under the title of ‘sāhasa.’

v1.c6.s23.6

It will be noticed that Nārada follows the Manusmṛti to a considerable extent in the nomenclature and the arrangement of the eighteen titles. Some of the titles are differently named by Nārada, e. g. he speaks of upanidhi, while Manu employs the word nikṣepa. Nārada seems to have included the svāmipālavivāda of Manu in vetanasyānapākarma. He makes one title of dyūta and samāhvaya. Nārada includes strīsaṁgrahaṇa under sāhasa and adds three titles, viz. abhyupetya-aśuśrūṣā, vikrīyāsampradāna and prakīrṇaka. The smṛticandrikā expressly³⁵⁴ says that it follows the work of Nārada in preference to that of Manu as regards the nomenclature and sequence of the titles of law. Nārada follows Manu in speaking of witnesses in the section on ṛṇādāna and in treating of theft after the eighteen titles have been dealt with (vide Manu IX. 256 ff.).

v1.c6.s23.7

³⁵⁴ नारदीयोद्देशकमानुसारिणश्च वयमित्यनवद्यमिहाभिधानम् ।

v1.c6.s23.8.1

The printed Nārada contains 1028 verses (including 61 on theft in the appendix). About seven hundred of these verses occur in various *nibandhas* as quotations. Up to the 21st verse of the section ‘abhyupetyāśuśrūṣā’ the commentary of Asahāya 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. Viśvarūpa, who belongs to the first half of the 9th century, quotes about fifty verses of Nārada (generally by name). The text that he had before him was essentially the same as that of the printed edition, except in a very few cases. Out of the seven verses of Nārada on ‘samayasyānapākarma’ Viśvarūpa quotes five (on Yāj. II. 190 and 196) and expressly states that Nārada wound up his chapter on that topic with the verse ‘doṣavat karaṇaṁ &c’. as the printed text does. On Yāj. II. 226 Viśvarūpa distinctly says that the verse ‘yameva hyativarteran’ &c. is followed immediately by ‘malā hyete manuṣyeṣu’. This is the case with the printed text also (dyūtasamāhvaya verses 13-14). On Yāj. III. 252 Viśvarūpa quotes a verse of Nārada about the three kinds of wealth, śukla, śabala and kṛṣṇa, which does not occur in that form in Nārada, though the latter contains similar dicta.³⁵⁵ Viśvarūpa contains no quotation from Nārada on the topics of ācāra or prāyaścitta. The same is the case with Medhātithi and the Mitākṣarā.

v1.c6.s23.8.2

Medhātithi somewhat inaccurately summarises the the introductory words (in prose) of Nārada (vide note 269 above). Medhātithi frequently quotes Nārada particularly from the sections on ṛṇādāna (vide on Manu 8. 47, 155, 149) and dāyabhāga (on Manu 8, 28, 29, and 207, 209, and 143). On Manu 8, 349 he quotes Nārada on partnership (verse 10), on 8. 216 he quotes Nārada (vetanasya-anapākarma verse 5). In some cases Medhātithi cites Nārada's verses without naming him e. g. on Manu 9. 76 he quotes the well-known verse ‘naṣṭe mṛte pravrajite &c.’ (Nārada on marital relation, verse 97) as ‘smṛtyantara’. It was shown above (p. 172) that the vyavahāra section of the Agnipurāṇa dates from about 900 A. D. Chap. 253 of the Agnipurāṇa contains thirty verses of the extant Nāradasmṛti, viz. Agni 253. 1b--9a= Nārada (vyavahāra-mātṛkā chap. I. 8–15); Agni 253. 9b--12=Nārada (vyavahāra-mātṛkā chap. I. 26-29a); Agni 253. 13--30 are the verses defining the eighteen titles from ṛṇādāna to prakīrṇaka contained in Nārada and occur in the same order in both. The readings preserved in the Agnipurāṇa deserve some discussion. Agni (253. 3-4) reads ‘dharmaś ca vyavahāraś ca ... uttaraḥ pūrvasādhakaḥ’, while Nārada has ‘pūrvabādhakaḥ’. Agni reads ‘caritraṁ saṁgrahe pūṁsāṁ rājājñāyāṁ tu sādhanam’ (253. 5), while Nārada has ‘caritraṁ pustakaraṇe rājājñāyāṁ tu śāsanam’. Agni (253. 15) reads ‘dattvā dravyaṁ ca samyag-yaḥ’, while Nārada (dattāpradānika 1) reads ‘dattvā dravyamasamyag-yaḥ’. The Agni (253.

v1.c6.s23.8.3

11) reads ‘Śaṅkā sadbhistu saṁsargāt tattvaṁ ṣoḍhābhidarśanāt’ and avoids the rare word ‘hoḍhābhi-’ in Nārada ‘Śaṅkāsatāṁ tu saṁsargāt tattvaṁ hoḍhābhidarśanāt’ (Vyavahāramātṛkā I. 27). For Nārada's ‘akṣabradhnaśalākādyair &c.’ (dyūtasamāhvaya I) Agni reads ‘Akṣavajra &c.’ (253. 29). The Mit. (on Yāj. II. 199) and Vīr. (p. 718) follow printed Nārada in the last case and also in the other cases. In the Smṛti-candrikā, Hemādri, Parāśaramādhavīya and other later *nibandhas* numerous verses of Nārada are quoted on topics of ācāra, śrāddha, prāyaścitta. For example, Hemādri (caturvarga vol. III. part 2, pp. 159, 183, 185, 223, 235) quotes several verses of Nārada on Ekādaśī and a verse of Nārada about the astrological *yoga* called padmaka. The Smṛticandrikā (I. pp. 198-199) quotes 26 verses on the worship of Nārāyaṇa, the last of which is the well known verse ‘dhyeyaḥ sadā savitṛmaṇḍala-madhyavartī &c.’ and the same work (on śrāddha p. 354) quotes a verse of Nārada in which Sunday and Saṁkrānti are mentioned. The question arises whether these quotations of Nārada on ācāra and prāyaścitta and allied topics are the work of the same Nārada that wrote on Vyavahāra.

v1.c6.s23.8.4

From the fact that early writers like Viśvarūpa, Medhātithi and Vijñāneśvara do not contain a single quotation of Nārada on topics other than that of vyavahāra, it appears probable that the quotations on ācāra and prāyaścitta belong to a later date than the Nāradasmṛti on vyavahāra and either did not exist in the days of Viśvarūpa and Medhātithi or had not attained canonical authority in those days. There is in the India Office Library a ms. of Nāradasmṛti in three chapters and 322 verses dealing exclusively with ācāra and prāyaścitta (vide Jolly's Introduction p. 5 to edition of text).

v1.c6.s23.9

³⁵⁵ शुक्लं च शबलं चैव कृष्णं च त्रिविधं धनम् । शुक्लं न्यायार्जितं धर्म्यमितरद् व्यावहारिकम् ॥ तत्पुनस्त्रिविधं ज्ञेयं शुक्लं शबलमेव च। कृष्णं च तस्य विज्ञेयाः प्रभेदाः सप्तधा पृथक् ॥ (नारद, ऋणदान 44).

v1.c6.s23.10

The Nāradasmṛti, excluding the introductory passage in prose about the successive abridgments of the original work of Manu by Nārada, Mārkaṇḍeya and Sumati Bhārgava, is written in the śloka metre except in the case of two verses (verse 38 of the 2nd chap. of vyavahāra-mātṛkā and the last verse of the chapter on sabhā). Nārada himself is mentioned by name in connection with the ordeals (ṛṇādāna verse 253).355a The first person also occurs in 'ataḥ param pravakṣyāmi' (ṛṇādāna 343). Ācāryas are cited in 'dattāpradānika' (verse 5). Dharmaśāstra and arthaśāstra are mentioned (vyavahāramātṛkā, chap. I, 37 and 39) and Nārada lays down the rule as in Yāj. (II. 21) that in a conflict between the two the former should furnish the rule of conduct.³⁵⁶ Nārada refers to Vasiṣṭha's rule about interest (ṛṇādāna 99). Two verses are quoted from a Purāṇa.³⁵⁷ Manu is named in several places (ṛṇādāna verses 250, 251, 326).³⁵⁸ The first passage about Manu is quoted by Viśvarūpa on Yāj. (II. 98) and corresponds closely with the teaching of Manu (8. 113). But the other passages crediting Manu with dividing ordeals into five kinds and giving his view about poison ordeal have no corresponding passage in the extant Manu. Therefore Nārada had a version of Manu before him that was somewhat different in certain respects from our Manu or Nārada may be referring to Vṛddha or Bṛhat Manu. Besides this there is one remarkable fact to be noted about the relation of Manu and Nārada. There are about 50 verses that are common to Manu and Nārada. Manu 8. 12-14 and 18-19 are Nārada (sabhā, verses 8-10 and 12-13 in a different order), Manu 8. 140-141 = N. (ṛṇādāna 99-100), Manu 8. 148-149 = N. (ṛṇādāna 80-81), M. 8. 143 = N. (ṛ. 129, M. 8. 64 = N. (ṛ. 177), M. 8. 72 = N. (ṛ. 189), M. 8. 93 and 113 = N. (ṛ. 199, 201), M. 98-99 = N. (ṛ. 208, 209 and Udyogaparva 35. 33-34), M. 8. 89 = N. (ṛ. 225), M. 8. 186-187, 189, 191 = N. (upanidhi 10-13), M. 8. 232-233, 235 = N. (vetanasya-anapākarma 14-16 in a different order), M. 9. 47 = N. (marital relation, verse 28), M. 8. 224-225 = N. (marital relation, 33-34), M. 9. 357-358 = N. (marital relation, 65-66 in reverse order), M. 9. 3 = N. (dāyabhāga 31), M. 9. 216 = N. (dāyabhāga 44), M. 8. 267-269 = N. (vākpāruṣya 15-17), M. 9. 270-272 = N. (vākpāruṣya 22-24), M. 8. 281-284 = N. (daṇḍa-pāruṣya 26-29), M. 4. 87 = N. (prakīrṇaka 44).

v1.c6.s23.11

355a सन्दिग्धेर्थेभियुक्तानां विशुद्धयर्थं दुरात्मनाम् । प्रोक्तानि नारदेनेह सत्य।नृतविशुद्धये ॥

v1.c6.s23.12

³⁵⁶ यत्र विप्रतिपत्तिः स्याद्धर्मशास्त्रार्थशास्त्रयोः । अर्थशास्त्रोक्तमुत्सृज्य धर्मशास्त्रोक्तमाचरेत् ॥

v1.c6.s23.13

³⁵⁷ पुराणोक्तौ द्वौ श्लोकौ भवतः । यः परार्थे प्रहिणुयात्स्वां वाचं पुरुषाधमः । आत्मार्थे किं न कुर्यात्स पापो नरकनिर्भयः ॥ वाच्यर्था नियताः सर्वे वाङ्मूला वाग्विनिःसृताः । यो हि तां स्तेनयेद्वाचं स सर्वस्तेयकृन्नरः ॥ नारद (ऋणदान 227-228).

v1.c6.s23.14

³⁵⁸ सत्यं वाहनशस्त्राणि गोबीजकनकादि च । ... इत्येते शपथाः प्रोक्ता मनुना स्वल्पकारणे । ऋणदान 248, 250; दैवं पञ्चविधं ज्ञेयमित्याह भगवान्मनुः । ऋणदान 251, छायानिवेशितो रक्ष्यौ दिनशेषमभोजनः । विषवेगक्लमातीतः शुद्धोऽसौ मनुरब्रवीत् ॥ ऋणदान 326.

v1.c6.s23.15

Nārada (ṛṇādāna 158) 'śrotriyās-tāpasā vṛddhā ye ca pravrajitā narāḥ । asākṣiṇas-te vacanān nātra heturudāhṛtaḥ' has probably Manu 8. 65 in view where we read 'na sākṣī...na śrotriyo na liṅgastho na saṅgebhyo vinirgataḥ'.

v1.c6.s23.16

Besides these there are several cases where Nārada closely agrees with Manu though the verses are not identical, e.g. Nārada (sāhasa 19) may be compared with Manu 9. 271 and Nārada (appendix on theft, verses 1-4) may be compared with Manu (9. 256-260). These facts establish that Nārada 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. Nārada contains several verses that occur in the Mahābhārata. For example, Śānti 111. 66 = N. (vyavahāra-mātṛkā 72),³⁵⁹ Udyoga 35. 58 = N. (sabhā, verse 18), Udyoga 35. 31-32 = N. (ṛ. 202-203). There are several cases where the text of Kauṭilya agrees with Nārada.³⁶⁰ In some of these cases the agreement is almost word for word.³⁶¹

v1.c6.s23.17

³⁵⁹ तलवद् दृश्यते व्योम खद्योतो हव्यवाडिव । न तलं विद्यते व्योम्नि न खद्योते हुताशनः ॥

v1.c6.s23.18

³⁶⁰ Compare कौटिल्य, धर्मस्थीय, chap. I, verses at the end with नारद, व्यवहारमातृका 1st chap., verses 2, 10-11, 39-40.

v1.c6.s23.19

³⁶¹ धर्मश्च व्यवहारश्च चरित्रं राजशासनम् । चतुष्पाद् व्यवहारोयमुत्तरः पूर्वबाधकः ॥ तत्र सत्ये स्थितो धर्मो व्यवहारस्तु साक्षिषु । चरित्रं पुस्तकरणे राजाज्ञायां तु शासनम् ॥ नारद, व्यवहारमातृका I. 10-11; the first half in each verse is the same in कौटिल्य.

v1.c6.s23.20

Though Nārada 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 Nārada enumerates five kinds of ordeals, describes them at length and adds two more viz. *taṇḍula-bhakṣaṇa* and *taptamāṣa* (ṛṇādāna, verses 259-348). He allows *Niyoga* (marital relation, verses 80-88), while Manu strongly condemns it. He allows remarriage of women (Nārada, marital relation, 97), while Manu is against it. Manu mentions seven kinds of slaves (8. 415), while Nārada raises their number to fifteen (abhupetyāśuśrūṣā, verses 26-28); Manu condemns gambling outright (9. 221-228), while Nārada allows it under state control and as a source of revenue; Nārada is further far more systematic than Manu and is full of divisions and subdivisions. For example, he divides property into three kinds, each of which is again subdivided into seven varieties (ṛṇadāna 44-47); Nārada divides the law of gift into four sections, which are further subdivided into 32; he subdivides the eighteen titles into 132 (vyavahāra-mātṛkā I. 25).

v1.c6.s23.21

There are a few points which are almost peculiar to Nārada, such as the fourteen kinds of impotent persons (strīpuṁsayoga 11-13), the three kinds of *punarbhūs* and four kinds of *svairiṇīs* (ibid. verses 45-52).

v1.c6.s23.22

Nārada is probably later than Yājñavalkya. Yāj. knows only five kinds of ordeals, while Nārada knows seven and the former's treatment of them is not so exhaustive as Nārada's. The rules of judicial procedure in Nārada are more systematic and exhaustive than those of Yāj. Nārada contains more definitions than Yāj. In some respects however Nārada is more conservative than Yāj. For example, Nārada nowhere recognises the rights of the widow to succeed to her deceased husband as Yāj. does; Nārada gives no rules about the succession of *gotrajas* and *bandhus* as Yāj. does. In a few respects Nārada agrees with the views of Manu instead of with Yāj., such as allowing a Brāhmaṇa to marry a śūdra woman. Nārada regards sexual intercourse with a pravrajitā (female ascetic) as a mortal sin (strīpuṁsayoga 74-75), while both Manu (8. 363) and Yāj. (II. 293) treat it lightly. Taking all these things into consideration it may be said that Nārada flourished nearly at the same time as or somewhat later than Yāj.

v1.c6.s23.23

Nārada contains several rare words such as "hoḍha" (in vyavahāramātṛkā 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;³⁶² 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.³⁶³ Mr. Jayasval sees in this and in the fact that Nārada speaks of dīnāra while the Mṛcchakaṭika speaks of nāṇaka indications that Nārada 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.³⁶⁴ This limit was probably first fixed by Nārada. Nārada further boldly says that in case of conflict between *dharmaśāstra* and usages, the latter have to be followed, as they are directly observed.³⁶⁵

v1.c6.s23.24

³⁶² त्रयः स्वतन्त्रा लोकेस्मिन् राजाचार्यस्तथैव च । प्रतिवर्णं च सर्वेषां वर्णानां स्वे गृहे गृही ॥ ऋणादान 32. This idea occurs in शान्तिपर्व 321. 147 'सर्वः स्वे स्वे गृहे राजा'.

v1.c6.s23.25

³⁶³ Vide प्रकीर्णक verses 20-22 . राजेति संचरत्येष भूमौ साक्षात् सहस्रदृक् । न तस्याज्ञामतिक्रम्य संतिष्ठेरन् प्रजाः क्वचित् ॥... निर्बलोपि यथा स्त्रीणां पूज्य एव पतिः सदा । प्रजानां विगुणोप्येवं पूज्य एव प्रजापतिः ॥

v1.c6.s23.26

³⁶⁴ बाल आ षोडशाद् वर्षात् पोगण्ड इति शस्यते । परतो व्यवहारज्ञः स्वतन्त्रः पितरौ विना ॥ ऋणादान 35-36.

v1.c6.s23.27

³⁶⁵ धर्मशास्त्रविरोधे तु युक्तियुक्तो विधिः स्मृतः । व्यवहारो हि बलवान् धर्मस्तेनावहीयते ॥ व्यवहारमातृका 40.

v1.c6.s23.28

As Nārada's is regarded as an authoritative smṛti by Viśvarūpa, Medhātithi and other later writers and as Asahāya, who is mentioned by name in the commentary of Viśvarūpa, wrote a comment on Nārada, the Nāradasmṛti must be older by some centuries than the 8th century, the latest date to which Asahāya can be assigned. Bāṇa in his Kādambarī compares the royal palace to Nāradīya.³⁶⁶ Ordinarily Nāradīya standing by itself would denote the Nārada-purāṇa (compare Viṣṇu-purāṇa 3. 6. 21 where we have the form Nāradīya for the purāṇa). The Nārada-purāṇa (Venkateśvara Press edition, Bombay) contains, however, no treatment of rāja-dharma. Bāṇa may have intended a violent pun, meaning ‘the palace where the duties of kings were being expounded (āvarṇyamāna), like the Nāradīya in which rājadharma has not been set forth (avarṇyamāna).’ European scholars like Dr. Jolly and Bühler hold that Bāṇa refers to the extant Nāradasmṛti. But on this explanation also the difficulty is not entirely got over. The extant Nārada can hardly be described as a treatise on rājadharma. It deals only in an indirect way with one aspect of the king’s duties and is rather concerned with vyavahāra and the duties of the subjects towards each other from the strictly legal point of view. If we turn to the Mahābhārata and other works, we shall find that rājadharma meant something different from what is treated of in the Nāradasmṛti. Therefore Bāṇa's reference to the Nāradīya is of a doubtful character. The Rājanīti-ratnākara of Caṇḍeśvara frequently quotes Nārada on politics (pp. 3, 13, 79). These quotations are not traced in the printed Nārada. Therefore it is highly probable that Bāṇa refers to a distinct work of Nārada on politics which has not yet been recovered.

v1.c6.s23.29

³⁶⁶ 'नारदीयमिवावर्ण्यमानराजधर्मम्' (राजकुलं) p. 91 of Peterson's ed.

v1.c6.s23.30

The Vyavahāramātṛkā of Jīmūtavāhana and the Parāśara-Mādhavīya (vol. III, part I, p. 203) quote a verse from Nārada, the latter half of which is the same as the latter half of a verse in the Vikramorvaśīya.³⁶⁷ The doctrine attributed to Nārada is found in Yāj. (II. 20) and the Viṣṇudharmasūtra, (6. 22) but not in the same words. Unfortunately the date of Kālidāsa is far from being universally accepted, but the fourth or first half of the 5th century is often accepted as the probable date. There is further difficulty in the fact that the text of the Vikramorvaśīya has been largely tampered with. If the verse is a genuine part of the drama, it seems natural to suppose that Kālidāsa turns a well-known legal maxim to a somewhat humerous use. It is hard to suppose that Nārada would borrow the words of a dramatist for setting forth a legal maxim. This would push back the date of Nārada far beyond the 5th century. Nārada in two places uses the word "dīnāra", once in the sense of a golden ornament and again as a coin or unit of value also called "suvarṇa." In this last case he says that "dīnāra is equal to 48 Kārṣāpaṇas or twelve dhānakas." Jolly (R. u, S. p. 23) thinks that Indian *dīnāras* can scarcely be older than the 2nd century A. D., although in the times of the Indo-Scythian kings coins of the weight of dīnāra occur. Therefore Jolly is of opinion that Nārada is later than 300 A. D. Winternitz (History of Indian Literature, vol. II. p. 216 n. 4) follows him in this assumption that all Sanskrit works in which the word *dināra* occurs must be later than the 2nd or 3rd century A. D. It may be that the golden dīnāras 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 *dīnāras* into India need not be later than the beginning of the Christian era. Golden *dīnāras* 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 B. C. (W. B. p. 44). Therefore there is nothing to prevent us from holding that Nārada 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. D. and after the Mṛcchakaṭika. Most scholars would not be prepared to assign to the Mṛcchakaṭika 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 nāṇaka and Nārada speaks of dīnāra 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.

v1.c6.s23.31

³⁶⁷ अनेकार्थाभियुक्तेन सर्वद्रव्यापलापिना। विभावितेकदेशेन देयं यदभियुज्यते ॥ अपरार्क (on याज्ञ. II. 20); व्यवहारमातृका of जी० pp. 310-11; हंस प्रयच्छ मे कान्तां गतिरस्यास्त्वया हृता । विभावितै ... युज्यते ॥ विक्रमोर्वशीय IV. 17 (Pandit's ed).

v1.c6.s23.32

³⁶⁸ मणयः पद्मरागाद्या दीनारादि हिरण्मयम् । मुक्ताविद्रुमशङ्खाद्याः प्रवृत्ताः स्वामिगामिनः ॥ नारद, व्यवहारमातृका II. 34; कार्षापणोण्डिका ज्ञेया ताश्चतस्रस्तु धानकः । तद्द्वादश सुवर्णस्तु दीनाराख्यः स एव च ॥ परिशिष्ट verse 60.

v1.c6.s23.33

It is difficult to say anything as to the home of Nārada. In the appendix on theft Nārada in one place says that in the south a silver kārṣāpaṇa is current, that in the east it is equal to twenty paṇas and that he does not follow the standard of kārṣāpaṇa current in the land of the five rivers.³⁶⁹ From these data and from the fact that the oldest mss. of Nārada come from Nepal and that an old commentary on Nārada in Newari was composed in Nepal, Dr. Jolly conjectures that Nārada's home was to be sought in Nepal. This is all pure guess-work. There is no reason why Nārada 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. Bhāmaha is by common consent a Kashmirian writer on Poetics, but the only mss. of his work so far found come from southern India.

v1.c6.s23.34

³⁶⁹ कार्षापणो दक्षिणस्यां दिशि रौप्यः प्रवर्तते । पणैर्निबद्धः पूर्वस्यां विंशतिस्तु पणाः स तु ॥... पाञ्चनद्याः प्रदेशे तु संज्ञा या व्यावहारिकौ । कार्षापणप्रमाणं तु निबध्नामिह नेतया ॥ चौर्यप्रतिषेधप्रकरण 57 and 59.

v1.c6.s23.35

Prof. Dr. Bhandarkar (Carmichael Lectures 1918, p. 90), probably following the Nayacandrikā, hazards the conjecture that the writer called Piśuna cited in the Kauṭilīya is another name of Nārada. Beyond the bare fact that Nārada is often credited in the purāṇas with the role of instigating feuds and quarrels and that the word piśuna means "wicked, back-biter", there is nothing to support this identification.

v1.c6.s23.36

A Jyotir-Nārada is quoted by Bhaṭṭoji in his commentary on the Caturviṁśatimata (p. 11). A Bṛhan-Nārada is quoted by Raghunandana and a Laghu-Nārada in the Nirṇayasindhu and the Saṁskāra-Kaustubha.

v1.c6.s23.37

In the Mahābhārata several opinions are attributed to Nārada. One of them condemns the eating of flesh.³⁷⁰ The first half of the last verse is the same as Manu 5. 52. Nārada is credited with having divided utpātas (portents) into three varieties.³⁷¹ Nārada is said to have held the view that one must always be active.³⁷² It appears that all these views are taken from some work or works of a Nārada.

v1.c6.s23.38

³⁷⁰ स्वमांसं परमांसेन यो वर्धयितुमिच्छति । नारदः प्राह धर्मात्मा नियतं सोयसीदति ॥ अनुशासन 115. 14.

v1.c6.s23.39

³⁷¹ उत्पातांस्त्रिविधान् प्राह नारदो भगवानृषिः । दिव्यांश्चैवान्तरिक्षांश्च पार्थिवांश्च पितामह ॥ सभा 46. 8-9

v1.c6.s23.40

³⁷² तस्मात्कर्मैव कर्तव्यमिति होवाच नारदः । उद्योगपर्व 49.

v1.c6.s23.41

The first is probably taken from Nārada's version of the Manusmṛti of which the purāṇas speak as stated above (note 270).

v1.c6.s23.42

For Asahāya the commentator of Nārada vide section 58 below.

Linked texts (11)