DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52359#0026
XXII
VISH2VU.
as far as the civil and criminal laws are concerned, that the
former enumerates them quite promiscuously, just like the
other Dharma-sutras, with which he agrees besides in
separating the law of inheritance from the body of the
laws, whereas Ya^navalkya enumerates all the laws in the
order of the eighteen f 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 Vishzzu-sutra may have in common
with the Yag’havalkya-smrfti, 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 con-
stantly than any other author, and the case becomes the
stronger, the more the nature of these analogies is inquired
into. Of Slokas alone Vishzzu has upwards of 160 in
common with Manu, and in a far greater number of cases
still his Sutras 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 Vishzzu. All the Smrz'tis of Apastamba, Baudha-
yana, VasishZ/za, Ya^navalkya, and Narada contain, accord-
ing to an approximate calculation, no more than about
130 Slokas, that are found in the code of Manu as well.
The latter author and Vishzzu 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 par-
ticularly important for deciding the relative priority of the
one work before the other. In a number of Slokas Manu’s
readings are decidedly older and better than Vishzzu’s.
Thus the latter (XXX, 7) compares the three ‘ Atigurus ’
to the ‘three gods,’ i. e. to the post-Vedic Trimurti of
‘ Brahman, Vishzzu, and Siva,’ as the commentator expressly
states, whereas Manu in an analogous Sloka (II, 230) refers
to the ‘ three orders ’ instead. At the end of the section
on inheritance (XVIII, 44) Vishzzu mentions among other
VISH2VU.
as far as the civil and criminal laws are concerned, that the
former enumerates them quite promiscuously, just like the
other Dharma-sutras, with which he agrees besides in
separating the law of inheritance from the body of the
laws, whereas Ya^navalkya enumerates all the laws in the
order of the eighteen f 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 Vishzzu-sutra may have in common
with the Yag’havalkya-smrfti, 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 con-
stantly than any other author, and the case becomes the
stronger, the more the nature of these analogies is inquired
into. Of Slokas alone Vishzzu has upwards of 160 in
common with Manu, and in a far greater number of cases
still his Sutras 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 Vishzzu. All the Smrz'tis of Apastamba, Baudha-
yana, VasishZ/za, Ya^navalkya, and Narada contain, accord-
ing to an approximate calculation, no more than about
130 Slokas, that are found in the code of Manu as well.
The latter author and Vishzzu 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 par-
ticularly important for deciding the relative priority of the
one work before the other. In a number of Slokas Manu’s
readings are decidedly older and better than Vishzzu’s.
Thus the latter (XXX, 7) compares the three ‘ Atigurus ’
to the ‘three gods,’ i. e. to the post-Vedic Trimurti of
‘ Brahman, Vishzzu, and Siva,’ as the commentator expressly
states, whereas Manu in an analogous Sloka (II, 230) refers
to the ‘ three orders ’ instead. At the end of the section
on inheritance (XVIII, 44) Vishzzu mentions among other