Institutes of Vishnu — Introduction

Introduction | Internet Sacred Text ArchiveSacred Texts Hinduism Index Previous Next p. ix # INTRODUCTION. THE Vish*n*u-sm*ri*ti or Vaish*n*ava Dharma*s*âstra or Vish*n*u-sûtra is in the main a collection of ancient aphorisms on the sacred laws of India, and as such it ranks with the other ancient works of this class which have come down to our time. It may be styled a Dharma-sûtra, though this ancient title of the Sûtra works on law has been preserved in the MSS. of those Sm*ri*tis only, which have been handed down, like the Dharma-sûtras of Âpastamba, Baudhâyana, and Hira*n*yake*s*in, as parts of the respective Kalpa-sûtras, to which they belong. The size of the Vish*n*u-sûtra, and the great variety of the subjects treated in it, would suffice to entitle it to a conspicuous place among the five or six existing Dharma-sûtras; but it possesses a peculiar claim to interest, which is founded on its close connection with one of the oldest Vedic schools, the Ka*th*as, on the one hand, and with the famous code of Manu and some other ancient law-codes, on the other hand. To discuss these two principal points, and some minor points connected with them, as fully as the limits of an introduction admit of, will be the more necessary, because such a discussion can afford the only safe basis for a conjecture not altogether unsupported regarding the time and place of the original composition of this work, and may even tend to throw some new light on the vexed question as to the origin of the code of Manu. Further on I shall have to speak of the numerous interpolations traceable in the Vish*n*u-sûtra, and a few remarks regarding the materials [1. This was first pointed out by Professor Max Müller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 134. His results were confirmed and expanded by the subsequent researches of Dr. Bühler, Introduction to Bombay Digest, I, p. xxii; Indian Antiquary, V, p. 30; Kasmir Report, p. 36.] p. x used for this translation, and the principles of interpretation that have been followed in it, may be fitly reserved for the last. There is no surer way for ascertaining the particular Vedic school by which an ancient Sanskrit law-book of unknown or uncertain origin was composed, than by examining the quotations from, and analogies with, Vedic works which it contains. Thug the Gautama Dharma*s*âstra might have originated in any one among the divers Gautama Kara*n*as with which Indian tradition acquaints us. But the comparatively numerous passages which its author has borrowed from the Sa*m*hitâ and from one Brâhma*n*a of the Sâma-veda prove that it must belong to one of those Gautama Kara*n*as who studied the Sâma-veda. Regarding the code of Yâ*g*ñavalkya we learn from tradition that a Vedic teacher of that name was the reputed author of the White Ya*g*ur-veda. But this coincidence might be looked upon as casual, if the Yâ*g*ñavalkya-sm*ri*ti did not contain a number of Mantras from that Vedic Sa*m*hitâ, and a number of very striking analogies, in the section on funeral ceremonies particularly, with the G*ri*hya-sûtra of the Vâ*g*asaneyins, the Kâtiya G*ri*hya-sûtra of Pâraskara. In the case of the Vish*n*u-sûtra an enquiry of this kind is specially called for, because tradition leaves us entirely in the dark as to its real author. The fiction that the laws promulgated in Chapters II-XCVII were communicated by the god Vish*n*u to the goddess of the earth, is of course utterly worthless for historical purposes; and all that it can be made to show is that those parts of this work in which it is started or kept up cannot rival the laws themselves in antiquity. Now as regards, first, the Vedic Mantras and Pratîkas (beginnings of Mantras) quoted in this work, it is necessary to leave aside, as being of no moment for the present purpose, 1. very well-known Mantras, or, speaking more [1. See Bühler, Introduction to Gautama (Vol. II of the Sacred Books of the East), pp. xlv-xlviii. 2. Bühler, Introduction to Digest, p. xxxii; Stenzler, On Pâraskara's G*ri*hya-sûtra, in the journal of the German Oriental Society, VII, p. 527 seq.] p. xi precisely, all such Mantras as are frequently quoted in Vedic works of divers *S*âkhâs; 2. the purificatory texts enumerated under the title of Sarva-veda-pavitrâ*n*i in LVI. The latter can afford us no help in determining the particular *S*âkhâ to which this work belongs, because they are actually taken, as they profess to be, from all the Vedas indiscriminately, and because nearly the whole of Chapter LVI is found in the Vâsish*th*a-sm*ri*ti as well (see further on), which probably does not belong to the same Veda as this work. Among the former class of Mantras may be included, particularly, the Gâyatrî, the Purushasûkta, the Aghamarsha*n*a, the Kûshmâ*nd*îs, the Vyâh*ri*tis, the Gyesh*th*a Sâmans, the Rudras, the Tri*n*â*k*iketa, the Trisupar*n*a, the Vaish*n*ava, *S*âkra, and Bârhaspatya Mantras mentioned in XC, 3, and the Mantra quoted in XXVIII, 51 (= Gautama's 'Retasya'). Among the twenty-two Mantras quoted in Chapters XLVIII, LXIV, LXV (including repetitions, but excluding the Purushasûkta, Gâyatrî, Aghamarsha*n*a) there are also some which may be referred to this class, and the great majority of them occur in more than one Veda at the same time. But it is worthy of note that no less than twelve, besides occurring in at least one other Sâkhâ, are either actually found in the Sa*m*hitâ of the Kârâya*n*îya-ka*th*as, the Kâ*th*aka (or *K*araka-sâkhâ?), or stated to belong to it in the Commentary, while one is found in the Kâthaka alone, a second in the Atharva-veda alone, a third in the Taittirîya Brâhma*n*a alone, and a fourth does not occur in any Vedic work hitherto known. A far greater number of Mantras occurs in Chapters XXI, LXVII, LXXIII, LXXIV, LXXXVI, which treat of daily oblations, *S*râddhas, and the ceremony of setting a bull at liberty. Of all these Mantras, which,--including the Purushasûkta and other such well-known Mantras as well as the short invocations addressed to Soma, Agni, and other deities, but excluding the invocations addressed to Vish*n*u in the spurious Sûtra, LXVII, 2,--are more than a hundred in number, no more than forty or so are found in Vedic [1. In speaking of this work I always refer to the Berlin MS. 2. XLVIII, 10. Cf., however, Vâ*g*as. Sa*m*h. IV, 12.] p. xii works hitherto printed, and in the law-books of Manu, Yâ*g*ñavalkya, and others; but nearly all are quoted, exactly in the same order as in this work, in the Kârâya*n*îya-kâ*th*aka G*ri*hya-sûtra, while some of them have been traced in the Kâthaka as well. And what is even more important, the Kâ*th*aka G*ri*hya does not contain those Mantras alone, but nearly all the Sûtras in which they occur; and it may be stated therefore, secondly, that the Vish*n*u-sûtra has four long sections, viz. Chapter LXXIII, and Chapters XXI, LXVII, LXXXVI, excepting the final parts, in common with that work, while the substance of Chapter LXXIV may also be traced in it. The agreement between both works is very close, and where they differ it is generally due to false readings or to enlargements on the part of the Vish*n*u-sûtra. However, there are a few cases, in which the version of the latter work is evidently more genuine than that of the former, and it follows, therefore, that the author of the Vish*n*u-sûtra cannot have borrowed his rules for the performance of Srâddhas &c. from the Kâ*th*aka G*ri*hya-sûtra, but that both must have drawn from a common source, i. e. no doubt from the traditions current in the Ka*th*a school, to which this work is indebted for so many of its Mantras as well. For these reasons I fully concur in the view advanced by Dr. Bühler, that the bulk of the so-called Vish*n*u-smriti is really the ancient Dharma-sûtra of the *K*ârâya*n*îya-kâ*th*aka *S*âkhâ of the Black Ya*g*ur-veda. It ranks, like other Dharma-sûtras, with the G*ri*hya and *S*rauta-sûtras of its school; the latter of which, though apparently lost now, is distinctly referred to in the Grihya-sûtra in several places, and must have been in existence at the time when the Commentaries on Kâtyâyana's *S*rauta-sûtras were composed, in which it is frequently quoted by the name [1. For details I may refer the reader to my German paper, Das Dharmasûtra des Vish*n*u und das Kâ*th*akag*ri*hyasûtra, in the Transactions of the Royal Bavarian Academy of Science for 1879, where the sections corresponding in both works have been printed in parallel columns, the texts from the Kâ*th*aka G*ri*hya-sûtra having been prepared from two of the MSS. of Devapâla's Commentary discovered by Dr. Bühler (Kasmir Report, Nos. 11, 12), one in Devanâgarî, and the other in *S*âradâ characters.] p. xiii of Ka*th*a-sûtra on divers questions concerning *S*rauta offerings, and at the time, when the Ka*s*mîrian Devapâla wrote his Commentary on the Kâ*th*aka Grihya-sûtra, which was, according to the Ka*s*mîrian tradition, as explored by Dr. Bühler, before the conquest of Ka*s*mîr by the Mahommedans. Devapâla, in the Introduction to his work, refers to 'thirty-nine Adhyâyas treating of the Vaitânika (= *S*rauta) ceremonies,' by which the Grihya-sûtra was preceded, from which statement it may be inferred that the Kâ*th*aka *S*rauta-sûtras must have been a very voluminous work indeed, as the G*ri*hya-sûtra, which is at least equal if not superior in extent to other works of the same class, forms but one Adhyâya, the fortieth, of the whole Kalpa-sûtra, which, according to Devapâla, was composed by one author. It does not seem likely that the Vish*n*u-sûtra was composed by the same man, or that it ever formed part of the Kâ*th*aka Kalpa-sûtra, as the Dharma-sûtras of Baudhâyana, Âpastamba, and Hiranyakesin form part of the Kalpa-sûtras of the respective schools to which they belong. If that were the case, it would agree with the G*ri*hya-sûtra on all those points which are treated in both works, such as e. g. the terms for the performance of the Sa*m*skâras or sacraments, the rules for a student and for a Snâtaka, the enumeration and definition of the K*rikkh*ras or 'hard penances,' the forms of marriage, &c. Now though the two works have on those subjects a number of such rules in common as occur in other works also, they disagree for the most part in the choice of expressions, and on a few points lay down exactly opposite rules, such as the Vish*n*u-sûtra (XXVIII, 28) giving permission to a student to ascend his spiritual teacher's carriage after him, whereas the other work prescribes, that he shall do so on no account. Moreover, if both works had been destined from the first to supplement one another, they would, instead of having several entire sections in common, exhibit such cross-references as are found e. g. between the Âpastamba G*ri*hya and Dharma-sûtras[1]; though the absence of such [1. Bühler, Introduction to Âpastamba, Sacred Books, II, pp. xi-xiv.] p. xiv references might be explained, in the case of the Vish*n*u-sûtra, by the activity of those who brought it into its present shape, and who seem to have carefully removed all such references to other works as the original Dharmasûtra may have contained. Whatever the precise nature of the relations between this work and the other Sûtra works of the *K*ârâyanîya-kâ*th*aka school may have been, there is no reason for assigning to it a later date than to the Kâ*th*aka *S*rauta and G*ri*hya-sûtras, with the latter of which it has so much in common, and it may therefore claim a considerable antiquity, especially if it is assumed, with Dr. Bühler, that the beginning of the Sûtra period differed for each Veda. The Veda of the Ka*th*as, the Kâ*th*aka, is not separated from the Sûtra literature of this school by an intermediate: Brâhma*n*a stage; yet its high antiquity is testified by several of the most eminent grammarians of India from Yâska down to Kaiyata. Thus the Kâ*th*aka is the only existing work of its kind, which is quoted by the former grammarian (Nirukta X, 5; another clear quotation from the Kâ*th*aka, XXVII, 9, though not by name, may be found, Nirukta III, 4), and the latter places the Ka*th*as at the head of all Vedic schools, while Patatañ*g*ali, the author of the Mahâbhâshya, assigns to the ancient sage Ka*th*a, the reputed founder of the Ka*th*a or Kâ*th*aka school of the Black Ya*g*ur-veda, the dignified position of an immediate pupil of Vai*s*ampâyana, the fountain-head of all schools of the older or Black Ya*g*ur-veda, and mentions, in accordance with a similar statement preserved in the Râmâya*n*a (II, 32, 18, 19 ed. Schlegel), that in his own time the 'Kâlâpaka and the Kâ*th*aka' were 'proclaimed in every village.' The priority of the Ka*th*as before all other existing schools of the Yagur-veda may be deduced from the statements of the *K*ara*n*avyûha, which work assigns to them one of the first places among the divers branches of [1. See Weber, Indische Studien XIII, p. 437 seq. 2. Mahâbhâshya, Benares edition, IV, fols. 82 b, 75 b. 3. See Weber, find. Stud. III, p. 256 seq.; Max Müller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 369. I have consulted, besides, two Munich MSS. of the *K*aranavyûha (cod, Haug 45).] p. xv the *K*arakas, whom it places at the head of all schools of the Ya*g*ur-veda. Another argument in favour of the high antiquity of the Ka*th*as may be derived from their geographical position. Though the statements of the Mahâbhâshya and Râmâya*n*a regarding the wide-spread and influential position of the Ka*th*as in ancient times are borne out by the fact that the Kara*n*avûtha mentions three subdivisions of the Ka*th*as, viz. the Ka*th*as proper, the Prâ*k*ya Ka*th*as, and the Kapish*th*ala Ka*th*as, to which the *K*ârâya*n*îyas may be added as a fourth, and by the seeming identity of their name with the name of the **{Greek Kaðaîoi} in the Pañ*g*âb on the one hand, and with the first part of the name of the peninsula of Kattivar on the other hand, it seems very likely nevertheless that the original home of the Ka*th*as was situated in the north-west, i. e. in those regions where the earliest parts of the Vedas were composed. Not only the **{Greek Kaðaîoi}, but the **{Greek Kambísðoloi} as well, who have been identified with the Kapish*th*ala Ka*th*as, are mentioned by Greek writers as a nation living in the Pañ*g*âb; and while the Prâ*k*ya Ka*th*as are shown by their name ('Eastern Ka*th*as') to have lived to the east of the two other branches of the Ka*th*as, it is a significant fact that adherents of the *K*ârâya*n*îya-kâ*th*aka school survive nowhere but in Ka*s*mîr, where all Brâhma*n*as perform their domestic rites according to the rules laid down in the G*ri*hya-sûtra of this school. Ka*s*mîr is moreover the country where nearly all the yet existing works of the Kâ*th*aka school have turned up, including the Berlin MS. of the Kâ*th*aka, which was probably written by a Ka*s*mîrian. It is true that some of the geographical and historical data contained in that work, especially the way in which it mentions the Pañ*k*âlas, whose ancient name, as shown by the *S*atapatha Brâhma*n*a (XIII, 5, 4, 7) and [1. See Weber, Über das Râmâya*n*a, p. 9: Ind. Stud. I, p. 189 seq.; III, p. 469 seq.; XIII, pp. 375, 439; Ind. Litteraturgeschichte, pp. 99, 332; Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, p. 102 seq. 2. See, however, Max Müller, Hist. Anc, Sansk. Lit., p. 333. 3. Bühler, Ka*s*mîr Report, p. 20 seq. 4. This was pointed out to me by Dr. Bühler.] p. xvi Rig-veda (VIII, 20, 24; VIII, 22, 12), was Krivi, take us far off from the north-west, the earliest seat of Aryan civilization, into the country of the Kuru-Pañ*k*âlas in Hindostân proper. But it must be borne in mind that the Kâ*th*aka, if it may be identified with the '*K*araka-*s*âkhâ,' must have been the Veda of all the *K*arakas except perhaps the Maitrâya*n*îyas and Kapish*th*alas, and may have been altered and enlarged, after the Kathas and Karakas had spread themselves across Hindostân. The Sûtras of a *S*âkhâ which appears to have sprung up near the primitive home of Âryan civilization in India, which was probably the original home of the Ka*th*as at the same time, may be far older than those of mere Sûtra schools of the Black Ya*g*ur-veda, which have sprung up, like the Âpastamba school, in South India, i. e. far older than the fourth or fifth century B. C. But sufficient space has been assigned to these attempts at fixing the age of the Kâ*th*aka-sûtras which, besides remaining only too uncertain in themselves, can apply with their full force to those parts of the Vish*n*u-sûtra only, which have been traced in the Kâ*th*aka G*ri*hya-sûtra. It will be seen afterwards that even these sections, however closely connected with the sacred literature of the Ka*th*as, have been tampered with in several places, and it might be argued, therefore, that the whole remainder of the Vish*n*u-sûtra, to which the Kâ*th*aka literature offers no parallel, may be a subsequent addition. But the antiquity of the great majority of its laws can be proved by independent arguments, which are furnished by a comparison of the Vish*n*u-sûtra with other works of the same class, whose antiquity is not doubted. In the foot-notes to my translation I have endeavoured to give as complete references as possible to the analogous passages in the Smritis of Manu, Yâ*g*ñavalkya, Âpastamba, and Gautama, and in the four G*ri*hya-sûtras hitherto printed. A large number of analogous passages might have been traced in the Dharma-sûtras of Vâsishtha [1. See Bühler, Introd. to Âpastamba, p. xliii. 2. See the Benares edition (1878), which is accompanied with a Commentary by K*ri*shnapa*nd*ita Dharmâdhikârin, I should have given references to this {footnote p. xvii} work, the first complete and reliable edition of the Vâsish*th*a-sm*ri*ti, in the footnotes to my translation, but for the fact that it did not come into my hands till the former had gone to the press. For Baudhâyana I have consulted a Munich MS. containing the text only of his Sûtras (cod. Haug 163).] p. xvii and Baudhâyana as well, not to mention Hira*n*yake*s*in's Dharma-sûtra, which, according to Dr. Bühler, is nearly identical with the Dharma-sûtra of Âpastamba. Two facts may be established at once by glancing at these analogies, viz. the close agreement of this work with the other Sûtra works in point of form, and with all the above-mentioned works in point of contents. As regards the first point, the Sûtras or prose rules of which the bulk of the Vish*n*u-sûtra is composed, show throughout that characteristic laconism of the Sûtra style, which renders it impossible in many cases to make out the real meaning of a Sûtra without the help of a Commentary; and in the choice of terms they agree as closely as possible with the other ancient law-books, and in some cases with the G*ri*hya-sûtras as well. Numerous verses, generally in the *S*loka metre, and occasionally designed as 'Gâthâs,' are added at the end of most chapters, and interspersed between the Sûtras in some; but in this particular also the Vish*n*u-sûtra agrees with at least one other Dharma-sûtra, the Vâsish*th*a-sm*ri*ti, and it contains in its law part, like the latter work, a number of verses in the ancient Trish*t*ubh metre. Four of these Trish*t*ubhs are found in the Vâsish*th*a-smriti, and three in Yâska's Nirukta as well, and the majority of the *S*lokas has been traced in the former work and the other above-mentioned law-books, and in other Sm*ri*tis. In point of contents the great majority both of the metrical and prose rules of the Vish*n*u-sûtra agrees with one, or some, or all of the works named above. The G*ri*hya-sûtras, excepting the Kâ*th*aka G*ri*hya-sûtra, naturally offer a far smaller number of analogies with it than the Sm*ri*tis, still they exhibit several rules, in the Snâtaka-dharmas and otherwise, that have not been traced in any other Sm*ri*ti except the work here translated. Among the Sm*ri*tis again, each single one maybe seen [1. XIX, 23, 24; XXIII, 61; XXIX, 9, 10; XXX, 47 (see Nirukta 11, 4; Vâsish*th*a II, 8-10); LVI, 27 see Vâsish*th*a XXVIII, 15); LIX, 30; LXXII, 7; LXXXVI, 16.] p. xviii from the references to contain a number of such rules, as are only met with in this work, which is a very important fact because, if the laws of the Vish*n*u-sûtra were found either in all other Sm*ri*tis, or in one of them only, its author might be suspected of having borrowed them from one of those works. As it is, meeting with analogous passages now in one work, and then in another, one cannot but suppose that the author of this work has everywhere drawn from the same source as the other Sûtrakâras, viz. from ancient traditions that were common to all Vedic schools. There are, moreover, a number of cases in which this work, instead of having borrowed from other works of the same class, can be shown to have been, directly or indirectly, the source from which they drew, and this fact constitutes a third reason in favour of the high antiquity of its laws. The clearest case of this kind is furnished by the Vâsish*th*a-smriti, with which this work has two entire chapters in common, which are not found elsewhere. I subjoin in a note the text of Vâsish*th*a XXVIII, 10-15, with an asterisk to those words which contain palpable mistakes (not including blunders in point of metre), for comparison with Chapter LVI of this work in the Calcutta edition, which is exceptionally correct in this chapter and in Chapter LXXXVII, which latter corresponds to Vâsish*th*a XXVIII, 18-22. In both [1. ### {footnote p. xix} ### Vish*n*u LVI, 15, 16, the best MSS. read ### but the Calc. ed. and one London MS. have ### like Vâsish*th*a. Of Vish*n*u LXXXVII the latter has an abridged version, which contains the faulty readings ### ('the skin of a black antelope,' Comm.) and ### (as an epithet of the earth = ### Vish*n*u LXXXVII, 9).] p. xix chapters Vish*n*u has mainly prose Sûtras and throughout a perfectly correct text, whereas Vâsish*th*a has bad Slokas which, supported as they are by the Commentary or by the metre or by both, can only be accounted for by carelessness or clerical mistakes in some cases, and by a clumsy versification of the original prose version preserved in this work in others. Another chapter of the Vish*n*u-sûtra, the forty-eighth, nowhere meets with a parallel except in the third Pra*s*na of the Dharma-sûtra of Baudhâyana, where it recurs almost word for word. An examination of the various readings in both works shows that in some of the *S*lokas Baudhâyana has better readings, while in one or two others the readings of Vish*n*u seem preferable, though the unsatisfactory condition of the MS. consulted renders it unsafe to pronounce a definitive judgment on the character of Baudhâyana's readings. At all events he has a few Vedic Mantras more than Vish*n*u, which however seem to be very well-known Mantras and are quoted by their Pratîkas only. But he omits the two important Sûtras 9 and 10 of Vish*n*u, the latter of which contains a Mantra quoted at full, which, although corrupted (see Vâgas. Sa*m*h. IV, 12) and hardly intelligible, is truly Vedic in point of language; and he adds on his part a clause at the end of the whole chapter[1], which inculcates the worship of Ga*n*e*s*a or *S*iva or both, and would be quite sufficient in itself to cast a doubt on the genuineness and originality of his version. It is far from improbable that both Vâsish*th*a and Baudhâyana may have borrowed [1. ###] p. xx the sections referred to directly from an old recension of this work, as Baudhâyana has borrowed another chapter of his work from Gautama, while Vâsish*th*a in his turn has borrowed the same chapter from Baudhâyana. It may be added in confirmation of this view, that as far as Vâsish*th*a is concerned, his work is the only Sm*ri*ti, as far as I know, which contains a quotation from the 'Kâ*th*aka'(in XXIX, 18). The Dharma-sûtras of Âpastamba and Gautama have nowhere a large number of consecutive Sûtras in common with the Vish*n*u-sûtra, but it is curious to note that the rule, which the latter (X, 45) quotes as the opinion of 'some' (eke), that a non-Brahmanical finder of a treasure, who announces his find to the king, shall obtain one-sixth of the value, is found in no other law-book except in this, which states (III, 61) that a *S*ûdra shall 'divide a treasure-trove into twelve parts, two of which he may keep for himself. Of the metrical law-books, one, the Yâ*g*ñavalkya-sm*ri*ti, has been shown by Professor Max Müller to have borrowed the whole anatomical section (III, 84-104 including the simile of the soul which dwells in the heart like a lamp (III, 109, III, 201), from this work (XCVI, 43-96; XCVII, 9); and it has been pointed out by the same scholar, that the verse in which the author of the former work speaks of the Âra*n*yaka and of the Yoga-*s*âstra as of his own works (III, 110) does not occur in the Vish*n*u-sûtra, and must have been added by the versificator, who brought the Yâ*g*ñavalkya-sm*ri*ti into its present metrical form. Several other *S*lokas in Yâ*g*ñavalkya's description of the human body (111, 99, 105-108), and nearly the whole section on Yoga (Y. III, 111-203, excepting those Slokas, the substance of which is found in this work and in the code of Manu, viz. 131-140, 177-182, 190, 198-201) may be traced to the same source, as may be also the omission of Vish*n*u's enumeration of the 'six limbs' (XCVI, 90) in the Yâ*g*ñavalkya-sm*ri*ti, and probably all the minor points on which it differs from this work. Generally speaking, those [1. See Bühler, Introduction to Gautama, pp. l-liv. 2. Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 331.] p. xxi passages which have been justly noticed as marking the comparatively late period in which that law-book must have been composed: such as the allusions to the astrology and astronomy of the Greeks (Y. I, 80, 295), which render it necessary to refer the metrical redaction of the Yâ*g*ñavalkya-sm*ri*ti to a later time than the second century A. D.; the whole passage on the worship of Ga*n*e*s*a and of the planets (I, 270-307), in which, moreover, a heterodox sect is mentioned, that has been identified with the Buddhists; the philosophical doctrines propounded in I, 349, 350; the injunctions regarding the foundation and endowment of monasteries (II, 185 seq.)--all these passages have no parallel in this work, while it is not overstating the case to say that nearly all the other subjects mentioned in the Yâ*g*ñavalkya-sm*ri*ti are treated in a similar way, and very often in the same terms, in the Vish*n*u-sûtra as well. Some of those rules, in which the posteriority of the Yâ*g*ñavalkya-sm*ri*ti to other law-books exhibits itself, do occur in the Vish*n*u-sûtra, but without the same marks of modern age. Thus the former has two *S*lokas concerning the punishment of forgery (II, 240, 241), in which coined money is referred to by the term nâ*n*aka; the Vish*n*u-sûtra has the identical rule (V, 122, 123; cf. V, 9). but the word nâ*n*aka does not occur in it. Yâ*g*ñavalkya, in speaking of the number of wives which a member of the three higher castes may marry (I, 57), advocates the Puritan view, that no *S*ûdra wife must be among these; this work has analogous rules (XXIV, 1-4), in which, however, such marriages are expressly allowed. The comparative priority of all those Sûtras of Vish*n*u, to which similar Slokas of Yâ*g*ñavalkya correspond, appears probable on general grounds, which are furnished by the course of development in this as in other branches of Indian literature; and to this it may be added, [1. See Stenzler, in the Preface to his edition of Yâ*g*ñavalkya; Jacobi, on Indian Chronology, in the Journal of the German Oriental Society, XXX, 305 seq., &c. Vish*n*u's rules (III, 82) concerning the wording &c. of royal grants, which agree with the rules of Yâ*g*ñavalkya and other authors, must be allowed a considerable antiquity, as the very oldest grants found in South India conform to those rules. See Burnell, South Indian Palæography, 2nd ed., p. 95.] p. xxii as far as the civil and criminal laws are concerned, that the former enumerates them quite promiscuously, just like the other Dharma-sûtras, with which he agrees besides in separating the law of inheritance from the body of the laws, whereas Yâ*g*ñavalkya enumerates all the laws in the order of the eighteen 'titles of law' of Manu and the more recent law-books, though he does not mention the titles of law by name. However much the Vish*n*u-sûtra may have in common with the Yâ*g*ñavalkya-smriti, there is no other law-book with which it agrees so closely as with the code of Manu. This fact may be established by a mere glance at the references in the foot-notes to this translation, in which Manu makes his appearance far more frequently and constantly than any other author, and the case becomes the stronger, the more the nature of these analogies is inquired into. Of Slokas alone Vish*n*u has upwards of 160 in common with Manu, and in a far greater number of cases still his Sûtras agree nearly word for word with the corresponding rules of Manu. The latter also, though he concurs in a very great number of points with the other law authors as well, agrees with none of them so thoroughly as with Vish*n*u. All the Smritis of Âpastamba, Baudhâyana, Vâsish*th*a, Yâ*g*ñavalkya, and Nârada contain, according to an approximate calculation, no more than about 130 Slokas, that are found in the code of Manu as well. The latter author and Vish*n*u differ of course on a great many minor points, and an exhaustive discussion of this subject would fill a treatise; I must therefore confine myself to notice some of those differences, which are particularly important for deciding the relative priority of the one work before the other. In a number of *S*lokas Manu's readings are decidedly older and better than Vish*n*u's. Thus the latter (XXX, 7) compares the three 'Atigurus' to the 'three gods,' i.e. to the post-Vedic Trimûrti of 'Brahman, Vish*n*u, and *S*iva,' as the commentator expressly states, whereas Manu in an analogous *S*loka (II, 230) refers to the 'three orders' instead. At the end of the section on inheritance (XVIII, 44) Vish*n*u mentions among other p. xxiii indivisible objects 'a book,' pustakam; Manu (IX, 219) has the same Sloka, but for pustakam he reads pra*k*akshate. Now pustaka is a modern word, and Varâhamihira, who lived in the sixth century A. D., appears to be the first author, with a known date, by whom it is used. It occurs again, Vish*n*u-sûtra XXIII, 56 (proksha*n*ena ka pustakam), and here also Manu (V, 122) has a different reading (puna*h*pâkena m*ri*nmayam). The only difference between Vish*n*u-sûtra XXII, 93 and Manu V, 110 consists in the use of singular forms (te, s*ri*nu) in the former work, and of plural forms (va*h*, s*ri*nuta) in the latter. Now there are a great many other Sm*ri*tis besides the Manu-sm*ri*ti, such as e. g. the Yâ*g*ñavalkya and Parâ*s*ara Sm*ri*tis, in which the fiction is kept up, that the laws contained in them are promulgated to an assembly of *Ri*shis; but there are very few Sm*ri*tis of the least notoriety or importance besides the Vish*n*u-sûtra, in which they are proclaimed to a single person. Other instances in which Manu's readings appear preferable to Vish*n*u's may be found, LI, 60 (pretya *k*eha *k*a nishk*ri*tim) = Manu V, 38 (pretya *g*anmani *g*anmani); LI, 64 (iti kathañ*k*ana) = M. V, 41 (ity abravînmanu*h*); LI, 76 (tasya) = M.V, 53 (tayo*h*); LIV, 27 (brâhma*ny*ât) = M. XI, 193 (brahma*n*â); LVII, 11 (purastâd anu*k*oditâm) = M. IV, 248; Vâsish*th*a XIV, 16; Âpastamba I, 6, 19, 14 (purastâd apra*k*oditâm); LXVII, 45 (sâyamprâtas tvatithaye) = M. III, 99 (samprâptâya tvatithaye), &c. But these instances do not prove much, as all the passages in question may have been tampered with by the Vish*n*uitic editor, and as in sonic other cases the version of Vish*n*u seems preferable. Thus 'practised by the virtuous' (sâdhubhi*sk*a nishevitam, LXXI, 90) is a very common epithet of 'â*k*âra,' and reads better than Manu's nibaddha*m* sveshu karmasu (IV, 155); and kri*kkh*râtik*rikkh*ram (LIV, 30) seems preferable to Baudhâyana's and Manu's k*rikkh*râtik*rikkh*rau (XI, 209). What is more important, the Vish*n*u-sûtra does not only contain a number of verses in the ancient Trishtubh metre, whereas Manu has none, but it shows those identical three Trish*t*ubhs of Vâsish*th*a and Yâska, which Dr. Bühler [1. See Max Müller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 512.] p. xxiv has proved to have been converted into Anush*t*ubh Slokas by Manu (II, 114, 115, 144); and Manu seems to have taken the substance of his three *S*lokas from this work more immediately, because both he (II, 144) and Vish*n*u, (XXX, 47) have the reading âv*ri*noti for ât*ri*natti, which truly Vedic form is employed both by Vâsish*th*a and Yâska. The relative antiquity of Vish*n*u's prose rules, as compared to the numerous corresponding *S*lokas of Manu, may be proved by arguments precisely similar to those which I have adduced above in speaking of the Yâ*g*ñavalkya-sm*ri*ti. As regards those points in the code of Manu, which are usually considered as marks of the comparatively late date of its composition, it will suffice to mention, that the Vish*n*u-sûtra nowhere refers to South Indian nations such as the Dravi*d*as and Andhras, or to the Yavanas; that it shows no distinct traces of an acquaintance with the tenets of any other school of philosophy except the Yoga and Sânkhya systems; that it does not mention female ascetics disparagingly, and in particular does not contain Manu's rule (VIII, 363) regarding the comparatively light punishment to be inflicted for violation of (Buddhist and other) female ascetics; and that it does not inveigh (see XV, 3), like Manu (IX, 64-68), against the custom of Niyoga or appointment of a widow to raise offspring to her deceased husband. It is true, on the other hand, that in many cases Vish*n*u's rules have a less archaic character than the corresponding precepts of Manu, not only in the Slokas, but in the Sûtra part as well. Thus written documents and ordeals are barely mentioned in the code (if Manu (VIII, 114, 115, 168; IX, 232); Vish*n*u on the other hand, besides referring in divers places to royal grants and edicts, to written receipts and other private documents, and to books, devotes to writings (lekhya) an entire chapter, in which he makes mention of the caste of Kâyasthas, 'scribes,' and he lays down elaborate rules for the performance of five species of ordeals, to which recourse should be had, according to him, in all suits of some importance. But in nearly all such cases the antiquity of Vish*n*u's [1. Introduction to Bombay Digest, I, p, xxviii seq.] p. xxv rules is warranted to a certain extent by corresponding rules occurring in the Sm*ri*tis of Yâgñavalkya and Nârada; and the evidence for the modifications and entire transformations, which the code of Manu must have undergone in a number of successive periods, is so abundant, that the archaic character of many of its rules cannot be considered to constitute a sufficient proof of the priority of the whole code before other codes which contain some rules of a comparatively modern character. To this it must be added that the Nârada-smriti, though taken as a whole it is decidedly posterior to the code of Manu, is designated by tradition as an epitome from another and more bulky recension of the code of Manu than the one which we now possess; and if this statement may be credited, which is indeed rather doubtful, the very particular resemblance between both works in the law of evidence and in the rules regarding property (see LVIII) can only tend to corroborate the assumption that the Vish*n*u-sûtra and the Manu-smriti must have been closely connected from the first. This view is capable of further confirmation still by a different set of arguments. The so-called code of Manu is universally assumed now to be an improved metrical edition of the ancient Dharma-sûtra of the (Maitrâya*n*iya-) Mânavas, a school studying the Black Ya*g*ur-veda; and it has been shown above that the ancient stock of the Vish*n*u-sûtra, in which all the parts hitherto discussed may be included, represents in the main the Dharma-sûtra, of the Kârâya*n*îya-ka*th*as, another school studying the Black Ya*g*ur-veda. Now these two schools do not only belong both to that Veda, but to the same branch of it, as may be seen from the *K*ârâ*n*avyûha, which work classes both the Ka*th*as and Kârâya*n*îyas on the one hand, and the Mânavas [1. See the evidence collected in the Preface to my Institutes of Nârada (London, 1876), to which the important fact may be added that Nârada uses the word dinâra, the Roman denarius. It occurs in a large fragment discovered by Dr. Bühler of a more bulky and apparently older recension of that work than the one which I have translated; and I may be allowed to mention, incidentally, that this discovery has caused me to abandon my design of publishing the Sanskrit text of the shorter recension, as it may be hoped that the whole text of the original work will soon come to light.] p. xxvi together with the six or five other sections of the Maitrâya*n*îyas on the other hand, as subdivisions of the *K*araka *S*akhâ of the Black Ya*g*ur-veda. What is more, there exists a thorough-going parallelism between the literature of those two schools, as far as it is known. To begin with their respective Sa*m*hitâs, it has been shown by L. Schröder that the Maitrâya*n*î Sa*m*hitâ has more in common with the Kâ*th*aka, the Sa*m*hitâ of the Ka*th*as, than with any other Veda. As the Ka*th*as are constantly named, in the Mahâbhâshya and other old works, by the side of the Kâlâpas, whereas the name of the Maitrâya*n*îyas does not occur in any Sanskrit work of uncontested antiquity, it has been suggested by the same scholar that the Maitrâya*n*îyas may be the Kâlâpas of old, and may not have assumed the former name till Buddhism began to prevail in India. However this may be, the principal Sûtra works of both schools stand in a similar relation to one another as their Sa*m*hitâs. Some of those Mantras, which have been stated above to be common to the Vish*n*u-sûtra and Kâ*th*aka G*ri*hya only, and to occur in no other Vedic work hitherto printed, have been traced in the Mânava *S*rauta-sûtra, in the chapter on Pi*nd*a-pit*ri*ya*g*ña (I, 2 of the section on Prâksoma), and the conclusion is, that if the *S*rauta-sûtra of the Kâ*th*aka school were still in existence, it would be found to exhibit a far greater number of analogies with the *S*rauta-sûtra of the Mânavas. The Grihya-sûtra of this school agrees with the Kâ*th*aka G*ri*hya-sûtra even more closely than the latter agrees with the Vish*n*u-sûtra, as both works have not only several entire chapters in common (the chapter on the Vai*s*vadeva sacrifice among others, which is found in the Vish*n*u-sûtra also), but concur everywhere in the arrangement of the subject-matter and in the choice of expressions and Mantras. The Brâhma*n*a stage of Vedic literature is not represented by a separate work in either of the two schools, but a further argument in [1. On the Maitrâyanî Sa*m*hitâ, journal of the German Oriental Society, XXXIII, 177 seq. 2. Cod. Haug 53 of the Munich Library. 3. Codd. Haug 55 and 56 of the Munich Library. For details, see my German paper above referred to.] p. xxvii favour of their alleged historical connection may be derived from their respective geographical position. If it has been rightly conjectured above, that the original seats of the Ka*th*as were in the north-west, whence they spread themselves over Hindostân, the Maitrâya*n*îyas, though now surviving nowhere except in some villages 'near the Sâtpu*d*a mountain, which is included in the Vindhyas.' must have been anciently their neighbours, as the territory occupied by them extended 'from the Mayûra mountain into Gu*g*arât,' and reached 'as far as the north-western country' (vâyavyade*s*a). Considering all this evidence regarding the original connection between the Ka*th*as and Mânavas, it may be said without exaggeration, that it would be far more surprising to find no traces of resemblance between their respective Dharma-sûtras, such as we possess them, than to find, as is actually the case, the contrary; and it may be argued, vice versâ, that the supposed connection of the two works with the Vedic schools of the Ka*th*as and Mânavas, respectively, is confirmed by the kinship existing between these two schools. In turning now from the ancient parts of the Vish*n*u-sûtra to its more recent ingredients, I may again begin by quoting Professor Max Müller's remarks on this work, which contain the statement, that it is 'enlarged by modern additions written in *S*lokas.' After him, Dr. Bühler pointed out that the whole work appears to have been recast by an adherent of Vish*n*u, and that the final and introductory chapters in particular are shown by their very style to have been composed by another author than the body of the [1. Bhâû Dâjî, journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, X, 40. 2. See a passage from the Mahâr*n*ava, as quoted by Dr. Bühler, Introduction to Âpastamba, p. xxx seq. The same readings are found in a Munich MS. of the *K*ara*n*avyûha-vyâkhyâ (cod. Haug 4.5). With the above somewhat unclear statement Manu's definition of the limits of Brahmâvarta (II, 17) may not unreasonably be compared. 3. The code of Manu has very little in common with the Mânava G*ri*hya-sûtra, both in the Mantras and otherwise. Both Vish*n*u and Manu agree with the Kâ*th*aka in the use of the curious term abhinimrukta or abhinirmukta; but the same term is used by Âpastamba, Vâsish*th*a, and others. 4 Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 134. 5. Introduction to Bombay Digest. p. xxii.] p. xxviii work. If the latter remark were in need of further confirmation, it might be urged that the description of Vish*n*u as 'the boar of the sacrifice' (ya*g*ñavarâha) in the first chapter is bodily taken from the Hariva*m*sa (2226-2237), while most of the epithets given to Vish*n*u in I, 49-61 and XCVIII, 7-100 may be found in another section of the Mahâbhârata, the so-called Vish*n*u-sahasranâma. Along with the introductory and final chapters, all those passages generally are distinctly traceable to the activity of the Vish*n*uitic editor, in which Vish*n*u (Purusha, Bhagavat, Vâsudeva, &c.) is mentioned, or his dialogue with the goddess of the earth carried on, viz. I; V, 193; XIX, 24; XX, 16-21; XXII, 93; XXIII, 46; XXIV, 35; XLVII, 10; XLIX; LXIV, 28, 29; LXV; LXVI; LXVII, 2; XC, 3-5,17-23; XCVI, 97,98; XCVII, 7-21; XCVIII-C. The short invocation addressed to Vish*n*u in LXVII, 12 is proved to be ancient by its recurrence in the corresponding chapter of the Kâ*th*aka G*ri*hya-sûtra, and Chapter LXV contains genuine Kâthaka Mantras transferred to a Vishnuitic ceremony. Chapter LXVI, on the other hand, though it does not refer to Vish*n*u by name, seems to be connected with the same Vish*n*uitic rite, and becomes further suspected by the recurrence of several of its rules in the genuine Chapter LXXIX. The contents of Chapter XCVII, in which it is attempted to reconcile some of the main tenets of the Sânkhya system, as propounded in the Sânkhya-kârikâ, Sânkhya-prava*k*anabhâshya, and other works, with the Vaishnava creed and with the Yoga; the fact that the two *S*lokas in XCVI (97, 98) and part of the Slokas in XCVII (15-21) have their parallel in similar *S*lokas of the Bhagavad-gîtâ and of the Bhâgavata-purâ*n*a; the terms Mahatpati, Kapila, and Sânkhyâ*k*ârya, used as epithets of Vish*n*u (XCVIII, 26, 85, 86); and some other passages in the Vish*n*uitic chapters seem to favour the supposition that the editor may have been one of those members of the Vish*n*uitic sect of the Bhâgavatas, who were conspicuous for their leaning towards the Sânkhya and Yoga systems of philosophy. The arrangement of the Vish*n*u-sûtra in a hundred chapters is no doubt due to the same person, as the Commentary points out that the number p. xxix of the epithets given to Vish*n*u in XCVIII is precisely equal to the number of chapters into which the laws promulgated by him are divided (II-XCVII); though the number ninety-six is received only by including the introductory and final invocations (XCVIII, 6, 101) among the epithets of Vish*n*u. It seems quite possible, that some chapters were inserted mainly in order to bring up the whole figure to the round number of a hundred chapters, and it is for this reason chiefly that the majority of the following additions, which show no Vishnuitic tendencies, may also be attributed to the Vishnuitic editor. 1. Most or all of the *S*lokas added at the end of Chapters XX (22-53) and XLIII (32-45) cannot be genuine; the former on account of their great extent and partial recurrence in the Bhagavad-gîtâ, Mahâbhârata, and other works of general note, and because they refer to the self-immolation of widows and to Kâla, whom the commentator is probably right in identifying with Vish*n*u; the latter on account of their rather extravagant character and decidedly Purâ*n*ic style, though the Gâru*d*a-purâ*n*a, in its very long description of the hells, offers no strict parallel to the details given here. The verses in which the Brâhma*n*as and cows are celebrated (XIX, 22, 23; XXIII, 57-61) are also rather extravagant; however, some of them are Trish*t*ubhs, and the verses in XIX are closely connected with the preceding Sûtras. The two final Slokas in LXXXVI (19, 20) may also be suspected as to their genuineness, because they are wanting in the corresponding chapter of the Kâ*th*aka G*ri*hya-sûtra; and a number of other verses in divers places, because they have no parallel in the Smriti literature, or because they have been traced in comparatively modern works, such as the Bhagavad-gîtâ, the Pañ*k*atantra, &c. 2. The week of the later Romans and Greeks, and of modern Europe (LXXVIII, 1-7), the self-immolation of widows (XXV, 14; cf. XX, 39), and the Buddhists and Pâ*s*upatas (LXIII, 36) are not mentioned in any ancient Sanskrit work. Besides, the passages in question may be easily removed, especially the Sûtras referring to the seven days of the week, which [1. Besides the passages quoted in the notes, 50-53 nearly Bhag.-gîtâ II, 22-26.] p. xxx form clearly a subsequent addition to the enumeration of the Nakshatras and Tithis immediately following (LXXVIII, 8-50), and the rule concerning the burning of widows (XXV, 14), which is in direct opposition to the law concerning the widow's right to inherit (XVII, 4) and to other precepts regarding widows. That the three terms kâshâyin, pravra*g*ita, malina in LXIII, 36 refer to members of religious orders seems clear, but it maybe doubted whether malina denotes the Pâ*s*upatas, and even whether kâshâyin (cf. pravra*g*ita XXXVI, 7) denotes the Buddhists, as dresses dyed with Kashâya are worn by Brahmanical sects also, and prescribed for students, and for ascetics likewise, by some of the G*ri*hya- and Dharma-sûtras. Still the antiquity of the Sûtra in question can hardly be defended, because the acquaintance of the Vish*n*uitic editor with the Buddhistic system of faith is proved by two other Sûtras (XCVIII, 40, 41), and because the whole subject of good and evil omens is not treated in any other ancient Smriti. On the other hand, such terms as vedanindâ and nâstikatâ (XXXVII, 4, 31, &c.) recur in most Sm*ri*tis, and can hardly be referred to the Buddhists in particular. 3. The Tîrthas enumerated in LXXXV, some of which are sacred to Vish*n*u and *S*iva, belong to all parts of India, and many of them are situated in the Dekhan, which was certainly not included within the limits of the 'Âryâvarta' of the ancient Dharma-sûtra (LXXXIV, 4). As no other Sm*ri*ti contains a list of this kind, the whole chapter may be viewed as a later addition. 4. The ceremonies described in XC are not mentioned in other Smritis, while some of them are decidedly Vish*n*uitic, or traceable in modern works; and as all the Sûtras in XC hang closely together, this entire chapter seems also to be spurious. 5. The repetitions in the list of articles forbidden to sell (LIV, 18-22); the addition of the two categories of atipâtakâni, 'crimes in the highest degree,' and prakîr*n*takam, 'miscellaneous crimes' (XXXIII, 3,5; XXXIV; XLII), to Manu's list of crimes; the frequent references to the Ganges river; and other such passages, which show a modem character, without being traceable in the Smritis of Yâ*g*ñavalkya and Nârada, may have been added by the Vish*n*uitic p. xxxi editor from modern Sm*ri*tis, either for the sake of completeness, or in order to make up the required number of chapters. 6. All the passages hitherto mentioned are such as have no parallel in other ancient Sm*ri*tis. But the Vish*n*uitic editor did evidently not confine himself to the introduction of new matter into the ancient Dharma-sûtra. That he did not refrain, occasionally, from altering the original text, has been conjectured above with regard to his readings of some of those Slokas, which are found in the code of Manu as well; and it can be proved quite clearly by comparing his version of the V*ri*shotsarga ceremony (LXXXVI) with the analogous chapter of the Kâ*th*aka G*ri*hya-sûtra. In one case (LI, 64; cf. XXIII, 50 = M. V, 131) he has replaced the words, which refer the authorship of the Sloka in question to Manu, by an unmeaning term. The superior antiquity of Manu's reading (V, 41) is vouched for by the recurrence of the same passage in the G*ri*hya-sûtra of Sânkhâyana (II, 16, 1) and in the Vâsish*th*a-sm*ri*ti (IV, 6), and the reference to Manu has no doubt been removed by the Vish*n*uitic editor, because it would have been out of place in a speech of Vish*n*u. References to sayings of Manu and other teachers and direct quotations from Vedic works are more or less common in all Dharma-sûtras, and their entire absence in this work is apparently due to their systematical removal by the editor. On the other hand, the lists of Vedic and other works to be studied or recited may have been enlarged in one or two cases by him or by another interpolator, namely, XXX, 37 (cf. V, 191), where the Atharva-veda is mentioned after the other Vedas by the name of 'Âtharva*n*a' (not Atharvângirasas, as in the code of Manu and most other ancient works), and LXXXIII, 7, where Vyâkara*n*a, 'Grammar,' i. e. according to the Commentary the grammars of Pâ*n*ini and others, is mentioned as distinct from the Vedângas. The antiquity of the former passage might indeed be defended by the example of Âpastamba, who, though referring like this work to the 'three Vedas' both separately and collectively, mentions in another place the 'Âtharva*n*a-veda.' Besides the above works, [1. See Bühler, Introduction to Âpastamba, p. xxiv.] p. xxii and those referred to in LVI, the laws of Vish*n*u name no other work except the Purâ*n*as, Itihâsas, and Dharma*s*âstras. 7. As the Vish*n*uitic editor did not scruple to alter the import of a certain number of passages, the modernisation of the language of the whole work, which was probably as rich in archaic forms and curious old terms as the Kâ*th*aka G*ri*hya-sûtra and as the Dharma-sûtra of Âpastamba, may be likewise attributed to him. As it is, the Vish*n*u-sûtra agrees in style and expressions more closely with the Sm*ri*tis of Manu and Yâ*g*ñavalkya than with any other work, and it is at least not inferior to the former work in the preservation of archaic forms. Thus the code of Manu has seven aorist forms, while the Vish*n*u-sûtra contains six, not including those occurring in Vedic Mantras which are quoted by their Pratîkas only. Of new words and meanings of words the Vish*n*u-sûtra contains also a certain number; they have lately been communicated by me to Dr. von Böhtlingk for, insertion in his new Dictionary. All the points noticed render it necessary to assign a comparatively recent date to the Vish*n*uitic editor; and if the introduction of the week of the Greeks into the ancient Dharma-sûtra has been justly attributed to him, he cannot be placed earlier than the third or fourth century A. D. The lower limit must be put before the eleventh century, in which the Vish*n*u-sûtra is quoted in the Mitâksharâ of Vi*g*ñâne*s*vara, From that time downwards it is quoted in nearly every law digest, and a particularly large number of quotations occurs in Aparârka's Commentary, on Yâ*g*ñavalkya, which was composed in the twelfth century. Nearly all those quotations, as far as they have been examined, are actually found in the Vish*n*u-sûtra; but the whole text is vouched for only by Nandapa*nd*ita's Commentary, called Vai*g*ayantî, which was composed in the [1. Whitney. Indische Grammatik, § 826. 2. See Jacobi, journal of the German Oriental Society. XXX, 306. The first author with a known date who shows an acquaintance with the week of the Greeks, is Varâhamihira (sixth century A, D.) 3. See Bühler, Ka*s*mîr Report. p. 52. The MSS. used are from the Dekhan College, Pu*n*a.] p. xxiii first quarter of the seventeenth century. The subscriptions in the London MSS. of the Vai*g*ayantî contain the statement, which is borne out by the Introduction, that it was composed by Nandapa*nd*ita, the son of Râmapa*nd*ita, Dharmâdhikârin, an inhabitant of Benares, at the instigation of the Mahârâ*g*a Ke*s*avanâyaka, also called Tammasânâyaka, the son of Ko*d*apanâyaka; and a passage added at the end of the work states, more accurately, that 'Nanda*s*arman (Nandapa*nd*ita) wrote it at Kâ*s*î (Benares) in the year 1679 of the era of Vikrâmabhâsvara (= A. D. 1622), by Command of Ke*s*avanâyaka, his own king. These statements regarding the time and place of the composition of the Vai*g*ayantî are corroborated by the fact that it refers in several cases to the opinions of Haradatta, who appears to have lived in the sixteenth century, while Nandapa*nd*ita is not among the numerous authors quoted in the Vîramitrodaya of Mitrami*s*ra, who lived in the beginning of the seventeenth century, and who was consequently a contemporary of Nandapa*nd*ita, if the above statement is correct; and that he attacks in a number of cases the views of the 'Eastern Commentators' (Prâ*k*yas), and quotes a term from the dialect of Madhyade*s*a. The subjoined translation is based upon the text handed down by Nandapa*nd*ita nearly everywhere except in some of the Mantras, which have been rendered according to the better readings preserved in the Kâ*th*aka G*ri*hya-sûtra. The two Calcutta editions of the Vish*n*u-sûtra, the second of which is a mere reprint of the first, will be found to agree in the main with the text here translated. They are doubtless based upon the Vai*g*ayantî, as they contain several passages in which portions of Nandapa*nd*ita's Commentary have crept into the text of the Sûtras. But the MS. used for the first Calcutta edition must have been a very faulty one, as both Calcutta editions, besides differing from the best MSS. of the Vai*g*ayantî on a very great number of minor points, entirely omit the greater part of Chapter LXXXI [1. Bühler, Introduction to Âpastamba, p. xliii. 2. Bühler loc. cit.] p. xxxiv (3-22), the genuineness of which is proved by analogous passages in the other Sm*ri*tis. An excellent copy of the Vai*g*ayantî in possession of Dr. Bühler has, together with three London MSS. of that work and one London MS. containing the text only, enabled me to establish quite positively nearly in every case the readings sanctioned by Nandapa*nd*ita. I had hoped to publish a new edition of the text prepared from those MSS., and long ready for the press, before publishing my English version. This expectation has not been fulfilled, but it is hoped that in the mean time this attempt at a translation will be welcome to the students of Indian antiquity, and will facilitate the understanding of the text printed in *G*ivânanda Vidyâsâgara's cheap edition, which is probably in the hands of most Sanskrit scholars. The precise nature of the relation in which the text of my forthcoming edition stands to the Calcutta editions may be gathered from the large specimens of the text as given in the best MSS., that have been edited by Dr. Bühler in the Bombay Digest, and by myself in two papers published in the Transactions of the Royal Bavarian Academy of Science. Nandapa*nd*ita has composed, besides the Vai*g*ayantî, a treatise on the law of adoption, called Dattaka-mîmâ*m*sâ[2], a commentary on the code of Parâ*s*ara, a work called Vidvanmanoharâ-sm*ri*tisindhu, one called *S*râddhakalpa-latâ, and commentaries on the Mitâksharâ and on Adityâ*k*ârya's Â*s*au*k*anir*n*aya. All these works belong to the province of Hindu law, and both his fertility as a writer in that branch of Indian science, and the reputation enjoyed by some of his works even nowadays, must raise a strong presumption in favour of his knowledge of the subject. The [1. The first edition of the 'Vaish*n*ava Dharma*s*âstra' was published in Bengali type by Bhavânî*k*âra*n*a; the second, in Devanâgarî type, is contained in *G*ivânanda Vidyâsâgara's Dharmashâstrasangraha (1816). 2. This work has been published repeatedly at Calcutta and Madras, and translated into English by Sutherland (1821), which translation has been reprinted in Stokes' Hindu Law Books. The rest of the above list is made up from an enumeration of Nandapandita's *T*ikâs at the end of Dr. Bühler's copy of the Vai*g*ayantî, from an occasional remark in the latter work itself (XV, 9), and from professor Weber's Catalogue of the Berlin Sanskrit MSS.] p. xxxv general trustworthiness of his Commentary on the Vish*n*u-sûtra is further confirmed by the frequent references which it contains to the opinions of earlier commentators of that work; and the wide extent of his reading, though he often makes an unnecessary display of it, has been eminently serviceable to him in tracing the connection of certain chapters and Mantras with the Kâ*th*aka literature[1]. On the other hand, his very learning, combined with a strict adherence to the well-known theory of Hindu commentators regarding the absolute identity between the teaching of all Sm*ri*tis, has frequently misled him into a too extensive method of interpretation. Even in commenting the *S*lokas he assigns in many cases an important hidden meaning to such particles as *k*a, vâ, tathâ, and others, and to unpretending epithets and the like, which have clearly been added for metrical reasons only. This practice, besides being contrary to common sense, is nowhere countenanced by the authority of Kullûka, in his remarks on the numerous identical *S*lokas found in. the code of Manu. With the Sûtras generally speaking the case is different: many of them would be nearly or quite unintelligible without the explanatory remarks added, in brackets from Nandapandita's Commentary, and in a number of those cases even, where his method jars upon a European mind, the clauses supplied by him are probably correct[4]. The same may be said of his interpretations of the epithets of Vish*n*u, excepting those which are based on utterly fanciful etymologies[5], [1. See the notes on LXV, 2 seq.; LXXIII, 5-9; LXXXVI, 13. In his Commentary on LXVII also Nandapandita states expressly that the description of the Vai*s*vadeva is according to the rites of the Ka*th*a-*s*âkhâ. 2. For instances, see the notes on XX, 45; LXIV, 40. 3. See e. g. Chapter V passim. 4. Thus nearly all the 'intentionally's' and 'unintentionally's,' &c., as supplied in the section on penances might seem superfluous, or even wrong; but as in several places involuntary crimes are expressly distinguished from those intentionally committed (see e. g. XXVIII, 48, 51; XXXVIII, 7), and as in other cases a clause of this kind must needs be supplied (see XXXIX, 2; LII, 3; LIII, 5, &c.), Nandapa*nd*ita is probably right in supplying it from other Sm*ri*tis in most remaining cases as well. This method has occasionally carried him too far, when his explanations have not been given in the text. 5. See I, 51, 55; XCVIII, 40, 41, 46, &c.] p. xxxvi as the style of the introductory and final chapters is as artificial, though in another way, as the Sûtra style. Though, however, in works composed in the latter style, every *k*a, vâ, or iti, &c., which is not absolutely required by the sense, was probably intended by their authors to convey a special meaning, it is a question of evidence in every single case, whether those meanings which Nandapandita assigns to these and other such particles and expletive words are the correct ones. In several cases of this or of a similar kind he is palpably wrong, and in many others the interpretations proposed by him are at least improbable, because the authoritative passages he quotes in support of them are taken from modern works, which cannot have been known to the author of the Vish*n*u-sûtra. Interpretations of this class have, therefore, been given in the notes only; and they have been omitted altogether in a number of cases where they appeared quite frivolous, or became too numerous, or could not be deciphered completely, owing to clerical mistakes in the MSS. But though it is impossible to agree with some of his general principles of interpretation, or with his application of them, Nandapa*nd*ita's interpretations of difficult terms and Sûtras are invaluable, and I have never deviated from them in my translation without strong reasons to the contrary, which have in most cases been stated in the notes. Besides the extracts given in the notes, a few other passages from the Commentary and several other additions will be given in p. 312; and I must apologize to my readers for having to note along with the Addenda a number of Corrigenda, which will be found in the same page. In compiling the Index of Sanskrit words occurring in this work, which it has been thought necessary to add to the General Index, I have not aimed at completeness except as regards [1. For instances of this in the Dharma-sûtras of Âpastamba and Gautama. see Bühler, Âpast. I, 2, 7, 24; 8, 5; Gaut. V, 5, 14, 17; IX, 44; XIV, 45; XIX, 13-15, 20; XXI, 9, &c.; and see also Dr. Bühler's remarks on *G*ñâpaka-sûtras, Âpast. I, 3, II, 7; Gaut. I, 31, notes. 2. See V, 117; VII, 7; XXVII, 10; LI, 26; LXXI, 88; LXXIII, 9; LXXIV, 1, 2, 7, &c. 3. See e. g. XVII, 22; XVIII, 44; XXIV, 40; XXVIII, 5, II; LV, 20; LIX, 27, 29; LXIII, 36; LXIV, 18; LXVII, 6-8; XCII, 4; XCVII, 7.] p. xxxvii the names of deities and of penances. My forthcoming edition of the Sanskrit text will be accompanied by a full Index of words. In conclusion I have to express my thanks in the most cordial manner to Dr. Bühler, who has constantly assisted me with his advice in the preparing of this translation, and has kindly lent me his excellent copy of the Vai*g*ayantî; and to Dr. von Böhtlingk and Professor Max Müller, who have favoured me with valuable hints on divers points connected with this work. My acknowledgments are due, in the second place, to K. M, Chatfield, Esq., Director of Public Instruction, Bombay, to Dr. von Halm, Chief Librarian of the Royal Library, Munich, to Professor R. Lepsius, Chief Librarian of the Royal Library, of Berlin, and to Dr. R. Rost, Chief Librarian of the India office Library, London, for the valuable aid received from these gentlemen and the great liberality, with which they have placed Sanskrit MSS. under their care at my disposal. Next: I.