History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c90.163

v7.c90.163

. Let us now turn to the four Upapurāṇas dealt with at length by Prof. Hazra About the Sāmba (which is one of the four Upapurāṇas expressly named in the Matsyapurāṇa 53 60-63) Prof. Hazra observes ('Studies' vol. I p 68) that the present Sāmba-purāṇa consists of different units mostly belonging to different countries and ages and after analysing in his own way the several chapters of the Sāmba he arrives at the conclusion (on p. 93) that chapters 17, 22 and 23 of the printed edition were added later than 950 A. D, that chap. 44-45 were inserted between 950 and 1050 A D and chap 39-43 and 47-83 were added between 1250 and 1500 A. D. There is at present only one printed ed. of the Sāmba viz that of the Venk. Press in 84 chapters based probably only on one ms Out of these 84 chapters Prof Hazra himself finds that 47 chapters are later than 950 A D., of which 42 were added between 1250-1500 A..D. Prof. Hazra has himself examined several mss of the Sāmba, but they do not come from all over India, many .being from Bengal and almost all seem to be late ones (p 33 last line), being copied in śaka 1764 i e 1842 A D When more than half of this Purāṇa ranges between 950 to 1500 A D according to Prof Hazra, how can it be usefully employed for chronological purposes? Nobody can say when the verses about the four Upapurāṇas were inserted in the Matsya, but one can affirm that it was done about the 9th century A. D or even later. Two dates about Upapurāṇas are certain, viz that Sāmba is mentioned by Alberuni (Sachau, I. p 130) who wrote in 1030 A. D. and that the Dānasāgara (verses 13-15 on p. 3), composed in 1069 A.D. mentions eight Upapurāṇas on dānas of which four viz. Sāmba, Nārasiṃha, Nandi and Āditya are the same as are mentioned in the Matsya. Therefore, an Upapurāṇa called Sāmba must have been composed a century or two earlier than 1000 A. D. On p. 91 he holds that the Sāmba cannot be dated later than 800 A. D. It is difficult to fall in line with all the assumptions on pp. 90-91 for arriving at this date. What the Sāmba named by Matsya contained beyond the words 'story of Sāmba' is not at all known. Prof. Hazra himself has given up at least half of the printed Sāmba as later than 950 A. D. and there is absolutely no reliable evidence to hold that the remaining portion of the Sāmba is earlier than 800 A. D or even earlier than 950 A. D.