DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52359#0022
xviii
VISHiVU.
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 Vishzzu-sutra were found
either in all other Smrztis, 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 pas-
sages 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 Sutrakaras, 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 Vasishz'/za-
smrzti, with which this work has two entire chapters in
common, which are not found elsewhere. I subjoin in a note
the text of Vasishz'/za 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 Vasishz’/za XXVIII, 18-aa1. In both
1 ^qq^qfq^iftir 1
qqf xnrer nwi
qrqqi^ ^nnfqf^q (?) ’q imu
qnnfq (?) 1
^TTKTfvT HTHW "W THTT II II
q TTqT I
(?) qiwqi nsqq^rqr 11 11
JTIH^ q (?) ’q man
VISHiVU.
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 Vishzzu-sutra were found
either in all other Smrztis, 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 pas-
sages 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 Sutrakaras, 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 Vasishz'/za-
smrzti, with which this work has two entire chapters in
common, which are not found elsewhere. I subjoin in a note
the text of Vasishz'/za 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 Vasishz’/za XXVIII, 18-aa1. In both
1 ^qq^qfq^iftir 1
qqf xnrer nwi
qrqqi^ ^nnfqf^q (?) ’q imu
qnnfq (?) 1
^TTKTfvT HTHW "W THTT II II
q TTqT I
(?) qiwqi nsqq^rqr 11 11
JTIH^ q (?) ’q man